I would, seriously, like to see one or more medical or research reports that show the literal breakdown of the process steps they used for identifying Covid-19.
I've had a go. Obviously I am not a professional epidemiologist, but the below should be useful:
If you want fluid samples and centrifuges, then this is a suitable paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7092803/
This paper explains the process using genomic sequencing and electron microscopy: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045880/
There is also this, which places SARS-CoV-2 in its genetic family: https://nextstrain.org/groups/blab/sars-like-cov
Finally, the SARS-CoV-2 Wikipedia page also contains a lot of background information and further links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2
You can also go to Google Scholar to find out how often a paper has been cited by others. For example, the first one on my list has been cited nearly 7,000 times:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22A+Novel+Coronavirus+from+Patients+with+Pneumonia+in+China%2C+2019%22&btnG=
Here is the interesting thing about the reports you cited. And thank you for following up.
None of these reports talks about filtration of the substance/fluid extracted.
Perhaps it is not in good form to use the words "filter/filtration/filtered." Yet filtration is one of the most important parts of the operation. Perhaps filtration is automatically included in wording that says something like, "No specific pathogens (including HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-OC43, and HCoV-HKU1) were detected in clinical specimens from these patients by the RespiFinderSmart22kit." But if so, why? It's an assumption. And assumptions aren't good science.
The reports are inconclusive regarding the actual processes involved. This is why franky1 was unable to give me the information about the process used, long ago. The reports seem to be incomplete in this way, just as Dr. Andrew Kaufman suggested.
Your last link is the most damning of all of them. It talks about how many times the reports were cited. The citing is the method for making the whole thing foundational. When other authorities agree with something that is incomplete, they are assuming that the original work was done properly, and they are telling the world that it was.
The reports in the links you cited seem to be assuming a lot. In other words, there still isn't any solid proof. It might be reasonable evidence, but it might only be vast quantities of hearsay.
However, thanks for trying.
