Jon Letendre

As I mentioned at least twice above, “SARS-CoV-2 Production, Purification Methods and UV Inactivation for Proteomics and Structural Studies” provides the proof that you have demanded, which incidentally is an unreasonable demand (evidence is evidence, you don’t get to arbitrarily stipulate what constitutes evidence). You have not addressed the facts, instead you retreat behind automatic denial as a means of evading the science. In the face of evidence having been presented, it is incumbent on you to disprove that evidence. Indeed, I have no evidence that you have even looked at that article, and I can think of no rational reason for your refusal to directly address the science. You offer no alternative conclusion regarding the axiomatic (the myriad scientific observations of covid), instead you just repeat your denial without evidence to support an alternative, nor do you even state what such an alternative is. In other words, you are engaging in selective epistemological nihilism.
My current counter-offer is that you should provide evidence that malaria exists: I will take the position that you have taken, which is to just deny that malaria exists. I sincerely hope that you do not hold a political-consequences theory of epistemology, that the standards of proof depends not on the logic of the claim and the objective nature of the existent, but are determined by whether the existent has been misused to support initiation of force. Under which logic, I substitute measles, smallpox or Spanish flu in my challenge to you, all of which triggered tyrannical governmental responses. I would like to see what you consider to be acceptable proof that malaria exists, and see some reasoning as to why you find that evidence to be sufficient (unless, of course, you are also a malaria-denier).

"Prevarication" = non-stop lying and distraction
It's your minds they own.
 
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-ukraine-war-runs-on-lies/

Yes, to some, psycho-epistemological barriers to autonomous discovery of the truth are difficult to detect and acknowledge, especially when faced with the potential feelings of fear and guilt.

Many tips and clues are posted by the participants here. The fundamental question is: Has the alleged cause of covid, the "novel SARS-CoV-2", been scientifically proven to exist and be identifiable by a process of isolation and purification? In answering this question, there may be distractions and diversions from its primacy and the controversy that, after 4 years,  the answer may still be in the negative.
Note that there is an as-yet unclaimed 1.5 million Euros award to any “virologist who presents scientific proof of the existence of a corona virus, including documented control experiments of all steps taken in the proof.”

Belief in all things covid is more complicated, I think, than whether or not one believes there was a specific viron spreading through the human population.
One reason to defend one's belief 'in it' is to rationalize the relinquishing of autonomy and especially among those who are cognizant of the level of prize they allot to individualism and productivity and the associated emotional responses that are tied into that relinquishment.  

What's different is that the belief in covid is based on science, so say the covid believers. Our belief is based on observation, experimentation, evidence, logic, and all the methods of reason; whereas, the belief in God is based on revelation, authority, testimonials, intuition, faith.
So, do you, the covid believers, know that covid exists by your own reason? Or, do you know it by reliance on the authority of (some of the) experts in virology and epidemiology?
For most of us, of course, we have to trust the consensus of experts; we don't have the knowledge or time to learn and know it for ourselves, which is normal and to be expected, for all knowledge outside our own fields.
Isn't your trust in covid experts is similar to that of the God believers' trust in their pastors, priests, popes, and theologians?
Not at all. Our trust is based on science and the science of the experts.
So it's rational for you to trust the covid experts, but not rational for the God believers to trust their God experts.  Yet you both don't know for yourself the existence of covid/God. What if belief in either is unjustified because the experts haven't told the whole truth? How do you find out?
 

Starting from the fact that lawsuits and criminal prosecutions are (ideally) seeking redress for violation of a person’s rights, justice is not served by an arbitrary time-based curtailment of the right to justice. Any time limit on justice demands proper justification, and “it has been a long time since the wrong was done” is not valid justification. The basic rationale for statutes of limitation is that miscarriage of justice is more-possible because of the unavailability or unreliability of witnesses after a certain number of years. A crucial presumption of SOL is that a person who has suffered a wrong will diligently seek justice, which of course requires that they have discovered the wrong, where for instance a surgeon who fails to remove an internal tumor can be sued for malpractice longer than the standard 3 years for personal injury, owing to the fact that the surgeon’s wrong is effectively un-discoverable.
The proper political question (not constitutional) is, at what point should a person’s right to justice be terminated by the state? The primary limit should be based on the miscarriage of justice problem of litigating stale cases, where the witnesses are dead or cannot be trusted to remember: and we need an objective rule governing that limit, it should not be treated on a subjective case-by-case basis. Victim awareness of the wrong (the discovery rule) is also a valid reason for exceptionally extending the limit backwards, but this backwards extension should not provide an easy excuse for indiligence in protecting one’s rights.
In the particular case, the New York Legislature simply abandoned the rational underpinnings of SOL law, by picking out an arbitrary subset of wrongs deserving of a longer limit on justice. It is not as though the victim was unaware of what purportedly happened, she simply chose to not care until she found a reason to care. So then why can’t I sue a contractor for defective workmanship 20 years ago?

The Legal Concept of Evidence
Necovore, I don't know if the preponderance-of-the-evidence rule for civil suits is itself from the Common Law Mr. Brooks purports he would like to be maintained, but most tort law is developed by the Common Law. So he might well need to blame the Common Law for that standard of proof in a charge such as that brought by Ms. Carroll; I don't know. What was the evidence for her claims rated by the jury as having more than 50% likelihood of being true? (I'd imagine Mr. Trump's former boast that you can grab 'em by the pussy if you are a star [entered as pertinent evidence in the present case] probably added some weight against his claim of innocence in the present case.)
Mr. Brooks provided no specifics to his claim that "over several generations Marxist intellectuals have been transforming the American justice system" to their political ends. Which intellectuals of any stripe transform the American justice system. Did Posner's economic analysis of law? Did Epstein's writings on the takings clause in the Constitution? (No on Epstein's, though I wish that they do, and I've still hope they will.) Where in Mr. Brooks's article are specified the law review articles by and names of these alleged Marxist intellectuals who have transformed the American justice system? Surely he knows that such Marxist intellectuals would have to be specific individuals, not air through which his hand waves, and surely he knows that if he speaks the truth in naming such individuals, he is defended against libel by the truth of his claim (proven by preponderance of the evidence). So far as I know, we've the same old common law in this sector of it, undermine confidence in the legal system day after day by hollering "Marxist", "prejudiced", or "rigged" for your political ends as a Mr. Brooks might.
Are intellectuals who think there is "social justice" over and above "justice" (which is a myopic view of "justice") people who have influence on the American legal system? Specifics are lacking for the sweeping declarations of Mr. Brooks. Are such intellectuals all Marxist? Can't intellectuals have wrong-headed social ideas without being Marxist or brainlessly led by Marxists? Of course they can and do. It's easier to cry "Marxist"—and catchier to an audience stuck in whatever learning they or their elders got of social thought 50 years ago—than relaying Rawl's A Theory of Justice with its Principles, including the Principle of Liberty, or the writer in jurisprudence A. J. David Richards based on Rawls or relaying Nozick's counters to Rawl's theory. Or rendering the illuminating classics: Hart's The Concept of Law and Fuller's The Morality of Law. Of course Mr. Brooks likely has read much from those works at some point and has a fair guess as to what quarters hear which of them sympathetically or with hostility. His piece is the usual for broad public consumption: name-calling and lies for a political cause.

It's completely improper to consider such a thing to be "evidence."
It's like saying Johnny Depp's performance in Sweeney Todd is "evidence" that he cut someone's throat.
Some rap music has lyrics that convey certain attitudes toward women, which would probably not look good if those rappers were accused of rape, but I think it's improper to consider those lyrics as "evidence" that the rappers committed rape. It's entirely arguable that the rappers say that stuff, not because it's true, but because they think it sells more records.
It seems even more improper that such statements should be used against Trump, but similar statements made by his accuser (and cited in the William Brooks piece), which would tend to reduce her credibility, didn't seem to be considered.

The context of that leaked and "assumably" 'off the record' comment was clearly a comment on how some people react to those deemed 'above' them in fame or wealth. In the context of rap culture , they were relating and in a surprising manner how far 'liberties' extend to personal space if someone believes they can somehow benefit for granting the space. Bitches be gold diggers , not necessarily prey as the picture was trying to be painted.

Reflecting on all the facets of the covid pandemic tyranny, there is much to think about - even if to most people, it's like a nightmare better to be forgotten, or even if, to a few others, it's like a comedy gone stale and no longer amusing.
What's more to look at? The murky reality of "SARS-CoV-2" and "Covid-19" raises doubts in the minds of independent thinkers about the objective existence and identification of a distinct, "novel" virus causing a new respiratory disease, deadly enough to justify a pandemic tyranny. But why then have so many people, the overwhelming majority, including most Objectivists, believe in covid?
Consider this: For thousands of years, nearly everyone believed in some God/gods. Even today, in our enlightened, scientific age, according to surveys, 85% of the world population reportedly believe in a God, over 6 billion people – including 2.4 billion Christian (1.4B Catholic), 2 billion Islamic, and1.1 billion Hindu – all preaching and practicing selfless service to God and the needs of others.
Why do these mystical beliefs in unproved, non-existent beings and irrational concepts endure and persist? What's similar, and what's different, between belief in God/Christ and belief in covid?

https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/cultural-marxism-and-the-corruption-of-common-law-5587345?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge

Being in 'the great outdoors' with 'fresh air abound' will by volume of air reduce the concentration of free floating particulates as opposed to a relatively closed environment of a structure that 'turns over' the volume of air within via the natural restrictions of  venting.
That coupled with the reduced ability of the body to produce and utilize vit D in winter months because the angle of the rays of the sun are not conducive to the process. Not exactly rocket science and yet on the whole basic logic was jettisoned.

I appreciate and am grateful that, in response to this challenge, each one of you have given it attention and posted your replies. I have learned and am encouraged that there are Objectivists here who are curious and caring about the truth of covid. My will was good, and I've received goodwill in return.

The "massive amounts of health care workers", or any number of believers or partial believers, don't need to be "lying", they don't need to be"involved in a huge conspiracy". They don't even need to know the truth; they just need to believe, trust in the "experts" and authorities, do their jobs, keep their head and eyes down, and just do as they're told.
The "list" of "evidence" are all downstream and derivative, contingent for validity on the primary evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has been proven to exist definitively and distinctly, by its having been isolated and purified. Verified documentation is yet to be found for this proof. Continued attempts to use "deaths", "vaccines", and consensus as "evidence from reality" are really just circular reasoning and begging the question, along with appeals to popularity, authority, and ignorance.
My "overall purpose" on this topic is to expose the truth by challenging believers in "SARS-CoV-2" and "Covid-19" to check their premises, think for themselves, and hold reason as absolute. I myself did that, and have been pointing to what I and others have found. Am I mistaken? Lying? Deluded? Ill-willed? What else have I posted, here or elsewhere?
 

To claim that covid vaccine research is "direct proof" of SARS-CoV-2's existence and identity, is the same circular reasoning as the claim that covid deaths are also proofs. They both assume that which is yet to be proven (proven with a definite, not probabilistic identity).
Even if 99% of the FOI request were administrative exclusions (which they're not, as shown by Christine Massey's notarized documents), why aren't there the 1% of records (research papers) of SARS-CoV-2 having been isolated and purified?
Moreover, a sampling of papers, including the first one from Wuhan, show no isolation and purification were done. Authors of some of those papers, when contacted, confirmed that they did not do isolation and purification. 
Even more revealing, apologists have insisted that current microbiology neither practice nor require virus isolation, and that virus identification is in percentages of probability.
(See earlier posts on all this.)

Where is the "massive amount of evidence"? Do you know of one paper clearly showing that SARS-CoV-2 was isolated and purified?. Investigators have searched and have yet to find or receive one.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, the claim that SARS-CoV-2 has not been proven, by isolation and purification, to exist with a distinct and definite identity, is not the same claim as that it doesn't exist.
It's not a "conspiracy theory" to not accept a claim without proof. The burden of proof is on they who assert, not on the non-believer to disprove the assertion.
It's a credit to Objectivism, on this topic, that its epistemology (and ethics) are applied and Ayn Rand's advice is followed, to "check your premises", think for oneself, with "reason as one's only absolute". "Nothing to do with Miss Rand's philosophy in any manner"?

Yes, the asserting side ultimately says: no definitive proof is available or required, just percentages of probability of existence and identity. That's sufficient to justify tyranny. Have trust in the goodwill of governments and their medical expert authorities.

Good point - but not for all cases. Some of the anti-pandemic measures may have reduced the spread and reported cases of some respiratory diseases due to microbes, but not those from other causes like asthma, malnutrition, or air pollution (in heavily polluted cities like Wuhan, Beijing, and Mumbai).
And, like Tad asked, why did the anti-pandemic measures not also reduced the covid cases in the same way?
Moreover, the funding and group-thinking factors would have biased diagnoses in favor of covid rather than other diseases, especially when misdiagnosed by the unreliable and inaccurate PCR/PCR-derived tests yielding significant false positives of covid due to over-amplification (assuming SARS-CoV-2 has been definitively identified).

Except covid ? Masking, distancing, and curtailing social engagement had an effect on respiratory disease transmission but did not limit the spread of covid ? The mitigation efforts stop somethings but not that one?
Are you proposing the transmission mechanism of covid was different than the mechanisms operational in the other diseases? I'm having a hard time understanding your logical cause and effect argument here.

Yes, a conflict of interest. And yes, "interesting", in the Spock's sense. "Fascinating" is how so many so easily suspended their own judgement and gave away their trust.

Covid-19, Excess Deaths?
A baker's dozen or more ways to find the truth of something like "Covid-19 Pandemic". It's as easy as pie, a piece of cake, the proof is in the pudding. Whether or not, or in whichever way, that SARS-CoV-2 has been proven to exist, just check the pre-2019 records (regional or global) for the numbers of respiratory illnesses/deaths from all causes (microbial and non-microbial).
Compare those numbers with 2020, 2021, 2022 & 2023 numbers, taking into account the usual changes in demographics. The cases of "Covid-19" illnesses/deaths, if any, would be the new, excess cases, occurring in addition to the numbers trending from the previous years or even for 2023.
Since it's hard to fake deaths on a massive scale needed for the pandemic, it's easier to re-label other pre-existing respiratory deaths as due to "covid" (covid, "because" there's a covid pandemic happening). Have there been excess deaths caused by covid? Or, do the numbers show that covid may be a cure for the common cold and other respiratory diseases?

Tucker interviews Truemed founder Calley Means about the diabetes and obesity crises, the criminal pharma companies, the healthcare system incentives that are skewed against our health and wellbeing, and more:
Big Pharma Is Fooling You Again, and You Don't Even Know It (rumble.com)

Provide evidence for/prove a negative? 
Oh, now you know of its positive existence through undeniable direct sensory evidence?
You are a clown.
"Yet you still have no personal evidence to support your position, it is entirely based on believing the claims of other people."
No, clown. You know where the burden lies.
We're not believing anyone's claims, and we don't have to produce shit in this debate, which you well understand.

Economic Freedom – Haley!
Vote for Haley in the Primary in your State! Anti-intellectualism is one reason, which, joined with others, Rand condemned the Presidential candidate of '68 George Wallace and his movement as proto-fascist. Trump should be condemned just as Wallace and for those same reasons and more. Wallace was not the nominee of either Party. Still, he won seven Southern states and a million votes. Had he gotten the Democratic nomination, as earlier in that century he could have, he could have won the presidency. Support for our constitutional democratic form of government is actually pretty weak, I gather, among the anti-intellectual portion of the citizens. Mr. Trump stirs that weak portion for support. Plenty of shallow sloganeering all around, of course, as ever.
I gather Haley will be in this at least through Super Tuesday, with her bloc-dollars from Mr. Koch and pals, with at least that money source. Her turn to raising the issue of economic freedom, I notice, coincides with the unwavering support of that by Koch across the decades.