-12

https://www.drrobertyoung.com/post/university-of-western-australia-no-record-of-isolation-or-purification-of-cov-by-anyone-ever

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?

F1Krazy
  • 3,520
  • 5
  • 20
  • 29
Reuben Difesa
  • 5
  • 2
  • 2
    See: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/50205/has-sars-cov-2-been-purified-in-a-lab-if-not-does-this-imply-that-the-pcr-test – FifthArrow Oct 14 '21 at 14:33
  • 2
    This reminds me of a previous question: [Is Alberta ending coronavirus restrictions because of failing to provide evidence of SARS-COV2 virus existence in court?](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/52137/is-alberta-ending-coronavirus-restrictions-because-of-failing-to-provide-evidenc) – Weather Vane Oct 14 '21 at 14:53
  • 2
    Questions 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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_O._Young), so I'm not bothering to read it to figure out what you might have found satisfying.) – Fizz Oct 14 '21 at 14:58
  • https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/50205/has-sars-cov-2-been-purified-in-a-lab-if-not-does-this-imply-that-the-pcr-test 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 Difesa Oct 15 '21 at 00:52
  • 1
    What test for identification do you envision doing on an intact virus that you can't do on purified viral protein or purified viral RNA? – CJR Oct 15 '21 at 02:44
  • Please don't change your question substantially after it was answered. You asked about the WA letter issue. You've got an answer on that. If you're unhappy with another answer to another question... and you can't find a quote to argue your point (so as to make the Q fit here)... there's always https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/ where you can ask about stuff you don't understand. – Fizz Oct 15 '21 at 06:33
  • Can the original question be restored? I quite do not understand the answer to the question at hand. – dEmigOd Oct 15 '21 at 21:10
  • @dEmigOd This *is* the original question, I already restored it. I'm guessing the reason Fizz's comment hasn't been deleted is so that the OP knows why I rolled it back and that they shouldn't change the question a second time. – F1Krazy Oct 15 '21 at 21:13
  • @dEmigOd: maybe because the Q misrepresented the freedom-of-information request as a "court order". As far I can tell no court was involved and the FOI answer doesn't seem used in any court (except that of public opinion) at least judging by the page linked. – Fizz Oct 15 '21 at 21:56
  • @Fizz I don't know what answer you are talking about? I am asking for evidence which can only be provided through a purified isolate to determine it exists. This is not recorded anywhere that I can find. I had a look at the duplicate question and could not comment on Mad Scientist answer so created my own question here. My issue with MS answer was that MS brought up a study whose purpose was not to verify the existence of SARS-COV2 but to study how the S protein interacts with the host cell. – Reuben Difesa Oct 16 '21 at 10:54
  • Seems that a virus can only be identified once it attaches to a cell which is then called a mutation. A virus is then the process of mutation is it not? – Reuben Difesa Oct 16 '21 at 11:02
  • A virus is not the "process of mutation". Basically every part of your understanding of this is wrong. Try reading about some of this biology: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7173417/ – CJR Oct 16 '21 at 14:18
  • @CJR "RNA viruses replicate their genomes using virally encoded RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp)" Virally encoded is describing a process is it not? Encoded is the verb and virally is the adverb being that viral is an adjective. – Reuben Difesa Oct 16 '21 at 14:35
  • The previous suggestion, more politely stated, is that you have a severe misunderstanding of the technicals on this topic. A good deal of reading to understand them is needed. If done, your question dissolves, since you'd then see it as "the wrong question". This is not an indictment on your intelligence, etc. There's many topics more complicated than they first appear. –  Oct 17 '21 at 15:56

1 Answers1

14

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.

Laurel
  • 30,040
  • 9
  • 132
  • 118
Dean MacGregor
  • 518
  • 2
  • 13
  • 6
    The 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. – Weather Vane Oct 14 '21 at 15:01
  • I was just attempting to format the document response - this however is a much better way to present this information. – Zibbobz Oct 14 '21 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. – Fizz Oct 14 '21 at 16:06
  • 3
    No 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. – user253751 Oct 15 '21 at 10:31
  • 2
    @user253751 more like asking for proof of radio waves without using a radio to propagate them – Reuben Difesa Oct 16 '21 at 10:59
  • @WeatherVane precisely! – Reuben Difesa Oct 16 '21 at 11:04