AlbertaTV: Hexagod - The Circular Logical Fallacy In "SARS-COV-2" "Isolation"

I took a look at an article claiming sars-cov-2 was isolated. It turns out that there's a circular path of logic being followed here:Show more

1.) They have to assume a novel coronavirus exists, when the symptoms essentially mirror a normal cold, per their own document [4]
2.) The RT-PCR test CDC document claims that because the virus was not isolated they had to "mimic" the "clinical specimen," which they are assuming exists per 1 [1] [2]
3.) The study that claims to have isolated the virus needed to use RT-PCR to know the patient had covid [3] [4]
4.) The RT-PCR is not a test of infectious disease per Kary Mullis

So it's a case of circular logic between points 2 and 3. The other virus isolate that was used was sars-cov, which had similar logical fallacies when I read the study. How does it prove isolation of "sars cov 2" if you used an "isolate" from "sars cov?"

Also, they are using monkey kidney cells to supposedly isolate... seems unusual, considering that viruses can't jump from species to species. This was the point of supposed "gain of function" research.

I will continue to look for evidence it has been isolated. So far I've come up empty handed every time. I've seen nothing convincing enough to make me think it exists outside of a bad cold/flu.

[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download (page 41)
Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/μL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.

[2] https://archive.is/5e7yy#selection-672.0-1211.643
Virus isolates
The following virus isolates were used:
1. SARS Coronavirus Frankfurt 1 (SARS-CoV)16
2. SARS Coronavirus 2 Italy-INMI1 (SARS-CoV-2)17

[3] https://archive.is/6N9lP#selection-1381.374-1381.553
Infection with SARS-CoV-2 was confirmed by performing real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay on sputum samples (cycle threshold value [Ct], 16.1)

[4] https://archive.is/rUzHR#selection-2367.0-2415.2
Preparation of SARS-CoV RNA.Vero or Vero E6 cells (1×107) were infected with SARS-CoV (Drosten et al., 2003) (isolate Frankfurt 1, fifth passage in cell culture) at an m.o.i. of 0·01. Two days after infection, intracellular poly(A)-containing RNA was prepared as described by Thiel et al. (2001). RNA isolated from respiratory tract and stool specimens was prepared using the QIAamp and QIAamp stool kit (Qiagen), respectively, according to the manufacturer's instructions.
Sequencing of the SARS-CoV (Frankfurt 1) RNA genome.To determine the SARS-CoV genomic sequence, a set of overlapping RT-PCR products with an average size of 2 kb encompassing the entire genome was generated as described by Thiel et al. (1997).