I think you just don't understand the meaning of what he is saying, because you lack context. I actually read more on this particular interview in the past and the explanation for this soundbite in full context was quite reasonable, but it would take me some time to find it again.

Please do share this explanation, @altleft, I’m all ears. The context is pretty clear imo, NBC reporter investigating “the origin of the virus” where the “first samples were taken.” When asked why Chinese authorities hadn’t shared the data they have, this was his response, “Well, they didn’t isolate the virus, that’s the issue,” and when asked, “What about animal samples” his reply was candid, “that doesn’t tell you anything,” because it is irrelevant where the samples are coming from if the virus hasn’t been isolated from those samples.

The context seems clear, the alleged emergence of a novel virus in Wuhan and the Chinese samples that were taken in patients from the Wuhan market where it allegedly all began. He’s clearly referring to the researchers who took and analyzed those samples, and he said they didn’t isolate the virus, but hey, maybe he didn’t actually mean what he said, maybe he actually meant that they did isolate it, and that something else was the issue. As small as a sound bite as it is, it’s pretty hard to misinterpret; he either meant what he said, or he didn’t, or there’s some other cryptic meaning of virus isolation that I’m missing here. So I’d love to hear that explanation of yours, I really would.

As you should have probably guessed, the first genomic mappings of sars-cov-2 were performed by Chinese scientists. They were, after all, the first ones to have access to samples. I ran across the paper at one point (it is highly cited by other scientists who have since mapped their own samples in different countries) and I can probably find it again if you will actually look at it.

Yes, this is exactly the point, and the Chinese official is saying those scientists didn’t isolate the virus. Am I missing something here? Genetic mappings of a virus that hasn’t been isolated and is thus only theorized to exist and to cause ‘Covid19’ (ie. Genetic mappings of RNA found in samples which may or may not be viral RNA of a virus which may or may not be new) does not prove that these non-purified particles are a novel virus.

Concerning the “viral genome sequence” mapped in the widely cited Chinese paper you reference, the original Drosten-Corman study, linked in my initial comment response, clearly states:

"In the present case of 2019-nCoV, virus isolates or samples from infected patients have so far not become available to the international public health community."

Or maybe this first “viral genome sequence” originally released to the international health community and said to establish existence of the ‘virus’ is not the one mapped in the early Chinese studies, maybe the study you reference came shortly after, but are you going to try to tell me those studies did not base their findings around the original genetic sequence that did not come from a virus isolate taken directly from a patient? No matter how you spin it, the initial genetic mapping that birthed the “viral genome sequence” come to be known as the original ‘virus’ strain was not the genetic sequencing and mapping of an isolated virus, and thus no amount of genetic sequencing and mapping, no matter how widespread, inherently establishes the existence of new virus named ‘2019-nCoV’/‘SARS-CoV2’, which could only by accomplished with the scientific gold standard of virus isolation and purification.

Maybe this has since been done, and I am just not familiar with the more recent studies, so I’d love to see the papers claiming to have done so - I’ve already looked at several that alleged ‘isolation’ but did not in fact purify virus - but no amount of studies mapping and sequencing a ‘virus’ that has yet to be isolated serve to prove the existence of that alleged virus. I patiently await for those studies to be published or brought to my attention so I can concede that the theory this virus hasn’t been proven to exist is in fact mistaken. I have always been and remain open to this possibility; I only wish to see the evidence that this virus has actually been properly isolated accompanied by end-to-end sequencing of those purified virus particles. And with this in mind, yes I for one would of course look at the Chinese study you reference, I would very much like to know which one you speak of and see the contents for myself.