In science there is no "proof beyond shadow of doubt", just confirming evidence.

Different people draw limit of neede evidence ar different levels.

For me it would be:

1. Isolate the virus from a sick (diagnosed, not rtPCR) patient biological sample

2. Purify the sample from other knowm contaminants (genetic)

3. Culture (grow) the sample of virus in a known, not contamined vero cell line (prove it is viable)

4. Infect known healthy animals (along with negative and positive other viral strain comtrols) with cultured sample

5. Watch, diagnose and observe disease progression in such animals to terminal state

6. Sample the live virus from such animals (repeat steps 1-3) above

7. Do a histological /Pathological analysis of dead animals from (5) to physically prove damage from the disease

8. Publish this in a reputable peer review journal and let papers survive post publication attacks

9. Replicate and reproduce the above steps by two independent teams at different labs using different virus isolates and animal models and publish the results of these as per 8.

To my knowledge 1-2 have been done, 3 has been done (but not in a proven uncontaminated vero line), 4 is done (without such controls), 5, 7,8 are done.

6 and 9 were not done (resampling and replication) the last time I checked the whole literature.

Currently the 1-5 is done twice on two animal models and without all my personal nit picky details.

The rest of the proof so far I have seen is genetic, but that only identifies the sequence, it doesn't prove what that "it" does (i. E. Infection damage proof from 4-5,7).

So in combination what is literature is strong enough, but not superb enough, it could be better.

However, Lanka"s proof is much less (he has half od the equation proven, not 100%).

And, no you can't do this in humans, unless Dr Mengele and you volunteer to do it on you.