Richard Cox, Being Right About No Virus |573|

Richard Cox is a podcaster and author.

[box]

Listen Now:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Subscribe:

[one_third][/one_third] [one_third][/one_third] [one_third_last][/one_third_last] 

Click here for forum Discussion

Click here for Richard Cox’s Website

[00:00:00] Alex Tsakiris: On this episode of skeptiko. a show about being right.

[00:00:06] clip: Yeah, but I wasn’t, Am I wrong?

Are we gonna split hairs here? No. No. Am I wrong?

Am I wrong? No. Am I wrong?

[00:00:13] Alex Tsakiris: That’s right. A show about being right.

==

[00:00:17] Alex Tsakiris: Explain to me, since you’re in that camp, how do they explain away the, the gain of function research, No

[00:00:23] Richard Cox: idea. But I’m, I hope that the audience listen into this has gained some value from what I have said, but I would be going into areas that I just don’t have a clue about if I even went

[00:00:31] Alex Tsakiris: there, Alex. So, rationally, logically, how does that make any sense to you?

[00:00:37] Richard Cox: I don’t know. I just can’t look because two years ago, the whole no virus thing at all didn’t make sense to me. So I, I just don’t know.

===

[00:00:42] Alex Tsakiris: That first clip was of course from the big Lebowski. And the second was from this spirited of dialogue I had with.

Richard Cox from the deep state consciousness podcast. All about the no virus thing.

Stick around. This is a classic skeptical. No two ways about

Welcome to skeptical where we explore controversial science and spirituality with leading researchers, thinkers, and their critics. I’m your host, Alex Tsakiris. I guess I ought to own it… I like being right.

===

So, uh, um, just rolling, but I’m not sure quite how we should do this. So I’m kind of open to any, uh, any suggestions you have and I mean, I can, Yeah, whatever you think.

I can start it. You can start it.

[00:01:40] Richard Cox: Well, I suspect you are looking to understand how I’ve jumped the shock, so to speak. How, how I’ve gone to a life which seems very irrational to you. Right? And, and what would be good to come out of this? I suppose it’s not, I think, you know, to decide whether viruses exist or not might be a little ambitious for the two of us sitting here.

But to decide what a sensible way to ask these questions are and how we can come to see that differently and what, why this division rises and other things like the role of then syop and that kind of thing, and what do we do about that. That might be an interesting way to go there.

[00:02:11] Alex Tsakiris: Yeah. You know, I was, uh, I was actually talking to, uh, Rob from the skeptical form a couple days ago, and I was saying, You know, this turns out to be kind of to me, and it has been, uh, like it’s made me rethink everything about skeptical

It’s made me rethink about all the interviews I’ve done over the years and all those factors of syop because, you know, you have jumped the shark here. I mean, you’ve left the logic of your own shows. we both interviewed this guy, Michael Wallach, who made this film The Viral Delusion, to me, when I interviewed the guy I was like, This no virus stuff is absurd. And, and my goal in the interview was just to show how absurd it is by using an extreme example of like, okay, so then you guys think like rabies doesn’t exist and dogs don’t really start foaming at the mouth because they have this viral infection that’s been known for hundreds of years.

So I was going to the absurd right, to kinda show how crazy this thing is. And as you know from that show, I, when I sent him the email, I was like, stunned cuz he emails mb and goes, Yeah, you know, I made up this fictional story about my dog who, who had rabies when I was a kid. And he goes, Yeah man, your dog didn’t have rabies.

Your dog must had worms. Cuz there’s no such thing as rabies . Rabies isn’t a disease, it, it isn’t a viral disease. It doesn’t. And I was just like, so I did the show just to kinda show how these guys have worked themselves into this crazy space. And then the really the next level stuff is, is that potentially a siop to kind of cover what’s going on with , Covid, but then Lo and Bold, you do the interview with Wall.

Can you start saying the same thing? Maybe rabies doesn’t exist. I mean, do you share the, do do you like say that to people in the real world outside of this echo chamber that we’re in? Do you ever say that, that, Hey, I’m coming to think that maybe rabies isn’t really

[00:04:15] Richard Cox: Oh, yes. I, I did a public showing of one of Michael’s episodes of episode two of the Viral Delusion just a couple

[00:04:22] Alex Tsakiris: of nights ago.

But see, I think it gets hidden in there, right? So , you’re willing to share with people that you think maybe rabies doesn’t exist. Yes. And you’re willing to share, like you’re open about the fact that you’re not sure that Covid is, , a viral disease.

Yes. And that the, the flu that you’ve gotten since you were a kid, you know, sometimes, and you, you go to the doctor and they say, Well, and give you antibiotics. No, not for this. You know, you gotta beat it yourself with like, all that is out the window.

[00:04:53] Richard Cox: Well, out the window is strong. What I’m saying is it should be on the table, like I think the no virus camp.

I’ve transitioned in my mind from hearing about it the first time and thinking, Oh, okay, this is the lunatic fringe of the era. Like the, the no planes at the Pentagon or the no planes at the Twin Towers. They were holograms. That was the lunatic fringe of the nine 11 era. And no virus. It’s like no terrorists, no Al-Qaeda.

It’s the, the extreme end of the conspiracy. So we will push that off to one side, ignore that, and carry on something more sensible. And I’ve transitioned from that point to thinking, Oh, I’ve made a mistake here. That they’re, they’re not the lunatic fringe, they’re actually relooking at the whole paradigm of virology and asking the most logical, critical, and penetration questions of anyone.

So I think they should be firmly on the table. I’m not saying they’re ultimately correct about everything, and I don’t think even they say, or a lot of ’em wouldn’t say, we can absolutely prove there is never a virus ever, because that, I mean, that’s a extremely high bar. And not being in biomedical sciences myself, I can imagine that I will get to my, my death and departure from this world without ever being able to like firmly come down on the side of the line and saying, I know this for certain about this.

But as regards an interesting proposition, um, the introduction of a, a valuable paradigm and something that may indeed well be true. Yes. I think it’s firmly on the table. They, they’ve crossed that line for me. Why I take it very seriously.

[00:06:18] Alex Tsakiris: Okay. So like did you get covid? Yeah. Okay, so what were, were the symptoms as described by everybody

[00:06:26] Richard Cox: else?

Like textbook omicron symptoms? I had the kind of muscular pain for a few hours and then it, that backed off and I was kind of okay, but I had a, a throaty thing for a while and that, that died off more slowly then like textbook omicron

[00:06:38] Alex Tsakiris: symptoms. So I had covid. , I’m a healthy, guy. Eat healthy, you know, live healthy.

But my daughter got it, you know, when she was in college and she came home and then my wife got it and then a few days later I got it and then my brother-in-law got it. We both had kind of classic symptoms. Exactly. You know, and the respiratory thing and you know, that, And it went just, just right along with the, the schedule lasted a long time.

Worse flu. I can remember having. For a long, long time, maybe in my whole life. So, you know now the people that you’re in bed with now and, and you interviewed some of ’em on your show, they say, No, you didn’t, you didn’t have the flu. They, they, because there’s, there’s non virus. What happened?

Yes. What is now your understanding of what happened to you and what happened to me since it wasn’t, viral.

[00:07:32] Richard Cox: Well, I don’t know. And I think this is one of the maybe weaker points of the no virus thesis, if you like. Oh yeah, you say you had it, your wife had your door. So there seems to be transmission going on. And I don’t discount that What I had could have been a virus. It could have been the Covid virus. Okay.

But I’m open. To the possib way I previously You

[00:07:54] Alex Tsakiris: do. No, I don’t. You do discount it. You do discount it because you, you can’t see, This is the, like one of the things that I, I was hoping we could kind of talk about cuz these are the logical fallacies and that’s why I say it relates back to the whole skeptical thing from the beginning when, you know, years ago, and we’ve known each other for a long time and I like the one thing I wanna say at the beginning of this, anyone can go back.

I have a ton of respect for you and for your work and for your mastery of these topics. That’s why I’ve had you on skeptical and that’s why I’ve always spoken so highly of you because I just do. So that’s what makes this particularly interesting to me because if you can jump the shark, if you can be influenced by this syop nonsense, then it’s not it, it just puts it in a d.

Different category for me, and it just caused us to, caused me to think about it, uh, differently. But the point I was gonna make, and I kind of rambled on there, so maybe I slipped in some things you wanna kind of address, but it’s like this idea that I can be, , neutral, I can be agnostic, is, is doesn’t hold, it doesn’t hold scientifically for you to maintain that maybe you did have the virus or maybe you didn’t have the virus is to deny all this tons of science , that, that tells you exactly what happened to you and millions of other people and explains it in a way that is scientific you’re challenging that you’re just being kind of like, Well, I don’t know, kind of a, I’m just being open, you know? But no, you’re challenging all

[00:09:32] Richard Cox: that. Oh, yeah. No, I, I’m not just like fence sitting in the sense of like, Oh, it could be this, could be that. I don’t know. I really don’t have any opinion. Maybe the earth is around, maybe the earth is flat.

Who knows? I am, My transition has been from, if you’d asked me that question a year ago and I’ve got covid the year before, let’s just, let’s just say, I would’ve firmly said, Oh, yeah, I had, I had a virus, of course, and, and I would’ve described my childhood experiences of measles as being virus, and I just wouldn’t in my head to question that.

And that’s what shifted for me. It’s not completely got, I don’t completely deny that possibility, but this whole or the paradigm has arisen, Well, maybe this is completely different way of looking. What’s, what’s going on there? And I think there’s a solid underpinning to that as well. I think there’s a, a lot of reasons you can put forward that point to serious substantial holes in the viral

[00:10:14] Alex Tsakiris: hypothe.

there are serious substantial holes in virology

but, , back to what you’re saying. You are obligated , to explain what happened to you, What happened to me, what happened to all these folks? Common symptoms, Write down the list. You, you need an alternative theory for how that could possibly be cuz it’s your direct experience and my direct experience.

[00:10:44] Richard Cox: Yeah. But I don’t, I mean, look, you might get someone on here who, from the, the no virus camp who can put forward a more solid argument. My case is, I don’t think the para, the, the hypothesis on what’s going on with things like covid is massively, overwhelmingly strong. It wouldn’t have convinced me. Okay. So you could say, well maybe it’s a detoxification.

Okay, I got it in January. I do tend to drink more in December, so maybe my body is detoxify. I don’t know, it doesn’t sound any more compelling to me than it was a virus. As, as a, a theory. Okay. Or, or just to point to another week’s boy spot. Uh, chicken box parties. Okay, So parents have this, uh, anecdotal experience that if you take your kids around to a house of a kid who wears chicken box, they will also catch chicken box.

Now you need to explain that, and I asked my, my recent guest, Daniel, uh, Tom Mills, who, who had really researched, uh, Tom CO’s work, and Tom call’s notion on this is, well, maybe it’s resonance, right? That if a child is going through a detoxification process or the children come into resonance the way women come into resonance with their menstrual cycles, and maybe that’s true to me, that sounds as speculative, if not more.

It’s a virus that’s doing it. So I just don’t think there’s a good accounting for that in the, in the no virus paradigm as to how these things, how people seem to pick these things up in groups. Or sometimes there is, like with scurvy, people get on a ship and they all catch the dreaded scurvy and it goes round and the next people go and come on the ship and they pass over and they get the scurvy virus.

And it seems like it’s a virus. So sometimes you could account for how people seem to have viruses and when, when they don’t, when, when there’s this group contagion effect. But in other, in other cases, I don’t think it’s always strong. I don’t think that no virus paradigm is a complete explanation of why disease and dysfunction arise in the human body.

Um, but equally, I think the viral paradigm has substantially bigger holes in places, different places.

[00:12:28] Alex Tsakiris: And that’s what I mean about jumping the shark, right? So seven years ago, I think it’s seven years ago at this point. Mm-hmm. , I did this show on skeptical. You remember this? The title is UN says African American Women 20 times more likely for HIV aids. Are they racist or just stupid? And it was an interview with this guy, Dr.

Henry Bauer from Virginia Tech, and he was onto exactly what you’re talking about is that our understanding of viruses is very, very incomplete. And it’s led us into some rather, uh, wacky, politically driven, syop driven conclusions, one of which was this connection between HIV and aids. So what this guy did is phenomenal, and actually he’s just in this book, he was reporting on the work of other people who had pointed this out, but they were using , information collected by, , the United States military, because when you join the military, they test, do you have hiv, do you have aids?

And they found this anomaly that completely crushes the idea of this direct connection between HIV and aids. And that is that African American women were 20 times more likely. So, He was pointing to. What you are pointing to is that we have a very incomplete understanding of how viruses, how germs, if you will work and this work that our body does to keep all this stuff stable and healthy and all that stuff.

But the jump, the shark moment is the Michael Wallock moment. It’s the no, there’s no viruses or Tom Cowan who I had on the show was just a complete moron. And like he says, stuff like they’ve never isolated the virus. And I said, Well here’s seven scientists who say they’ve isolated the the virus. Here’s a guy in Saskatchewan, Canada.

A doctor who used to work with camels in Saudi Arabia for viruses that cross from animals to people. And he goes, Well, I, I, I don’t believe it. And, uh, he needs to tell the CDC and all just all this nonsense. It’s the classic kind of flat, earthy science where the standard then becomes, you have to convince me.

If you don’t convince me to my satisfaction, then it isn’t true when just common sense would tell you that, Richard, you had covid. I had Covid, my wife had Covid, my daughter had my brother-in-law, my father-in-law died of Covid. Now, I don’t usually throw that out there because I don’t know if he really died of Covid, but he was in a nursing home in Alabama and he got sick and tested him, and it came up Covid and he died.

I don’t make a too big of a deal out of that a as a kind of a lead with, oh my God, somebody close to me died because they said he was gonna die a year or two ago. And it, it, it, it took a good, strong flu to kind of put him over. I’m not trying to be. Insensitive, but you know, that’s the facts of it.

You, you understand that to anyone who’s listening to this just kind of rationally, they’d say, Gee, Richard, you gotta offer some way for how that could explain. It’s not detoxification that doesn’t, that doesn’t fit with, you know, your body was detoxing and my body was detoxing, and all these people, you know, that we could trace the number and the, the spread of it and the whole thing and everyone’s detoxing or some other kind of environmental stuff.

It, you understand that, that just completely doesn’t make any sense. I don’t

[00:16:13] Richard Cox: think it’s pivotal. Okay. And I can understand why you might disagree with that. But what I think the no virus idea is, is a competing paradigm. And I don’t think. Paradigms necessary. Explain all the facts. I think we’re, if you look at it in, in a Kuny and Thomas Coon sense, we’ve, I’ve moved in my mind from the place of virology being the dominant paradigm to now the arising of a competing paradigm, both of which have explanations for some facts.

So if I can monologue for a minute, maybe on how I got here with, with the HIV thing. So I obviously going years back to when you did it on skeptical and before, was aware that there was this idea that HIV didn’t cause aids or wasn’t directly connected or there was something a bit funny there and that seemed as the years went by to have more and more validity in, Cause you didn’t see the mass die offs that were predicted in the eighties.

But I didn’t pay too much attention to this stuff until the Covid Dier were all forced to look at viruses. And I went back and forth reading the work of Peter Berg, the uh, microbiologist. Probably the most prominent figure, along with Carrie Mul the, uh, the inventor of the PCR test on denying that connection between HIV and aids.

So it seems to me to be the case. It seems to me that people in the eighties were destroying their immune systems by a heavy drug lifestyle. And then the drug AZT came along and it seems undeniable at the doses it was being handed out at. This is Anthony Fauci drug. It was killing people who’ve had positive HIV tests, and those deaths are being logged as aids.

So that would be something of a problem for virologists, but okay, maybe it’s a one off. Maybe that was one mistake and they’ll right up about all the others. But then when I looked at polio, you have this inert virus that lives in human beings, so thousands of years doing nothing. And then at exactly the moment people start spraying lead aate everywhere, polio mutates and becomes a virus that paralyzes people, and that continues in the first world, but not the third world when they’re not spraying these things until lead aate and DDT band, at which point polio falls off the cliff.

Then a vaccine comes in, which takes the credit for that. But at the same time, DDT is being sprayed in the third world now and polio shoots for the roof and you see it being renamed and relabeled. So, and, and then the third point for me would be the, um, the vaccination program. And I don’t think you can divorce this from, um, questions of whether virus or, or questions of the credibility of virology as a science.

That if you were to ask any virologist, you know, how did the vaccination program contribute to the decline? These diseases, I’m gonna say the vast, vast majority of them will think it’s massive. We think they were the primary factors in decline. Whereas what we actually see is a death rate from whooping carbon measles and and so on was down 98, 90 9% before the introduction of vaccinations.

So increasingly then virology looks like a shaky science and all these points, and at some point you think, well, if something has got that many holes in it, maybe it’s not just the odd mistake here and there, maybe there’s something fundamentally wrong with the paradigm that at least in the case of, of AIDS and poliomyelitis, we’re not looking at a virus.

There’s something else. And if virologists can be wrong about that, why not measles? Why not smallpox? And, and why not covid? And that brings me to then the idea that a lot of the covid deaths, which I was convinced was, was, uh, viral induced were he atrogenic, were medically induced during the early part of 2020 and onwards in there.

And that was the, the big shock of me when I saw that I can’t put a number to it, right? It’s very hard to get a number to, it wasn’t a hundred percent was it less than that. But it seems like through things like the inappropriate use of ventilators, uh, end of life pathways, which Britain is famous for running to excess and drugs like Melan, it seems like a lot of people were killed by their doctors during the early quarter of the, um, the second quarter of 2020.

And when those death spikes are occurring. So when you add all this up, virology has so many holes in that maybe it’s a sinking ship, maybe there’s something wrong with very fundamentals. And that what we’re looking at, what, what scientists is looking at when they’re staring down the electro microscopes and identifying particles and, and the, the virus people in the no virus, people both agree on what is being seen.

They’re pointing to the same things. They have a fundamentally different interpretation of what those things are. That they’re either an infectious viral agent or they’re the effects of toxification. What you’re seeing is dying tissue there, and I just simply don’t know which one of those ideas is correct at the moment.

But I know that no virus people can point to a lot of areas where they have scored and scored big time against the virologists. Yeah,

[00:20:24] Alex Tsakiris: but this is again, the, the jump, the shark thing, like I just told you, you know, the, the guy I had on, who is, you gotta say he’s a mainstream guy. He’s Virginia Tech. , Henry Bauer. The other one that I was gonna, you know, bring to your attention, cuz we’ve talked about it as well, is, you know, Dr. Mary’s Monkey, just a fantastic book, Edward Haslem. And you said, when I brought this up to you, that you’ve, you’ve read this book well mm-hmm. , I don’t know how you could read this book and not see the subtlety involved in what we’re talking about here.

And, and then is that, just to recap the story on Dr. Mary’s monkey is they’re trying to develop a polio vaccine because despite everything that you’re saying, and I’m not saying that some of that isn’t true, polio was the most feared disease in the 1940s, 1950s. Right. It was. Mothers would keep their kids in from school, not send them out so they don’t get polio and they don’t wind up with these braces, these metal braces all over their legs and.

It was the most feared disease. And when, Saul comes along and says, I have the vaccine for polio. It was like a life changing event. If you read the stories about the history, there were actually, the reporters were weeping in the, at the press conference because this was such a breakthrough from science that we could do this, all this stuff.

Right. So notwithstanding a lot of the stuff you’re saying, the history I always talk about, I’ve talked with you about this on this show. It’s like documented history. Is this guy Ashner in Louisiana. He’s gonna manufacture this vaccine and he’s gonna make a bunch of money. Eventually this woman in charge of testing the vaccines, which is gonna make ashner just tons and tons and tons of money, She stands up and says, uh, you know, hate to mention this, but in my lab, some of the monkeys we’ve been testing the vaccine on are dying or getting really sick.

And he goes, No, couldn’t be, couldn’t be, couldn’t be happening. , this is like covid vaccine repeated , which has turned out to be incredibly, incredibly dangerous. If you see now the health effects that are happening, which again, completely contradict your model, , you cannot sustain this no virus thing.

And at the same time, explain how the vaccine which is based on the virus, could be causing all these health effects. But back to the story with Ashner, Ashner is looking at losing millions and millions of dollars if his vaccine, cuz there’s competing vaccine companies that are developing this if his vaccine is shown to be dangerous.

So he puts this big public demonstration, and again, this is history. You can see pictures of this guy and pictures of his kids and stuff like that. He does this public demonstration where he says, I will inject the vaccine into two of my grandkids right here on stage. He does, one of them dies within 24 hours.

The other is permanently injured in a severe way by polio. So this little story, which is like a true account, people were there, People report on it. Devin Straights, How stupid the no virus thing is

But at the end of the day, to suggest that there is no virus or to get into camp with these people, what really bothers me and the whole reason for this thing is it just opens the door for what they really wanna do, which is be in complete control of the scientific narrative around, in this case C, because if they can do the divide and rule thing, if they can get people in this, there is no virus camp.

They’ve taken them off the table. They are off the table from public debate, from rational discussion because no one takes that shit seriously.

[00:24:35] Richard Cox: Well, just to the, the polio vaccine point I was watching, that’s exact thing in episode two of Mike Wall’s documentaries a couple of nights ago did a public showing bit. And if I was to talk to someone from the no virus camp who’s really studied this and expedited it, that would be exactly my question, Alex.

So, okay. If it’s not a virus, why did people receiving the polio vaccine have the same symptoms as poliomyelitis? Like you’d think that just, if it was just some random tissue they’re injecting, you’d think they’d have something different happen to them. Like people getting the covid vaccine, it’s a problem with the, The myocarditis is meant to be the thing.

So I don’t know that, right? That, that’s a good question. It was a question that I thought of, but it doesn’t change the fact that Poliomyelitis correlates so tightly with environmental poisons and in terms of where it arises both in time and in geography. So that seems like a much more likely paradigm to explain.

This condition of paralysis that was happening in children, then an inert virus that’s lived in human beings for thousands of years randomly mutating into a deathly virus or a paralyzing virus. At exactly the moment we start spraying all the food with chemicals we know paralyzed people, and then going away at exactly the moment we stop paralyzing, uh, spraying the food of chemicals we know paralyzed people.

That just seems like too much of a coincidence. So my mike, so if I can put a question to you, you’d answer it now in a minute or another, if there are these problems of ology, both in terms of the vaccination program being greatly exaggerated, like massively exaggerated in its efficacy, and that being something that virologists would support the vaccinations, and if it is true that HIV does not cause aids, if it is true that poliomyelitis is not caused by a virus, and if it’s true that the good proportion, perhaps all of the, uh, co covid deaths were iatrogenic, doctor induced, how many sins with you allowed the virologists to commit?

How many times would you allow them to be wrong? Before you would say, Well, okay, maybe they’re wrong about something else. Like maybe it’s measles. Maybe it’s rabies. But it’s not like they’re just wrong about the things you can prove right now. If they’re wrong about all this, they’re gonna have one or the others wrong, surely.

And if they can have one or the others wrong, then it could be two or three. And at what point do you have to say, you know, I think there is something potentially wrong with the underpinning virality paradigm. What? What would be your point of falsification for virology where you’d at least question it?

[00:26:55] Alex Tsakiris: This is my job, is to take each one of those cases and break ’em down and find out where the truth is and follow the data, , are there serious problems with stretching how far and how effective vaccines are?

Absolutely. What about the anti-vaxxer, you know, five years ago the big issue was, uh, the danger of vaccines, which I think has, it, it like , I stumble over this, that is like a super important topic to me, the danger of vaccines.

But I want you to realize what this no virus SIOP does to that. It completely sidelines it. You can’t have both. A few years ago. The, the hot topic was, is MMR associated with autism? Is there a connection? And I think like statistically, I think that’s been established so before I go on and on, do, do you get what I’m saying? How, from a syop standpoint, what a, what an effective move. You got these, the, these guys slamming this no virus thing and it completely sidelines the dangers and the risks of vaccines.

[00:28:14] Richard Cox: Well, that isn’t where they go with it. Certainly they would be as critical vaccinations as anyone.

Now, I’m not

[00:28:20] Alex Tsakiris: quite sure. But for different reasons. For different reasons. There, there, look, the underlying science that I’m, that I’m putting forward that again, you have to take a stand on this one way or another, is that the danger of like the MMR vaccine is in the vaccine.

So what would the, what would the germ people, the, No vi how would the No, the

[00:28:40] Richard Cox: virus, That’s exactly the question I have. I don’t know that it occurred to me just the other day. Well, what’s called, why did people taking the polio vaccine get polio like symptoms? It’s a, it’s a good question, but at the same time, and I’m repeating myself here, I can’t ignore the tight correlation between poliomyelitis and environmental poisons.

It just seems just overwhelming to me when, when those poisons are known to cause paralysis. Like even with the flat earth, Alex, I, I made myself come up with a falsification point, not because I think the earth might actually be flat, but my concern was if I’m just dismissive, right? And I, I get people commenting on my channel and occasionally writing to me saying, Hey, you should really cover the flat earth you need to take.

And I look at. Their writing and what they linked to me. And so far it’s all been ridiculous. It’s been people going down to the beach and going, Oh, looks flat to me. So I’ve never gone further with that. And I, I, I, I refuse to cover flat Earth as a science right. Cause I, I just don’t accept that. But I made myself think of falsification points.

Like, okay, what would be, what would convince me, what would make me reject the round of paradigm? Or at least put the flat earth paradigm on the table. Yeah. If I went outside and I looked at the sun again and I saw it actually disappearing into the distance rather than setting Okay. That, that would be a thing.

And if I looked at a ship and I saw that it didn’t actually like disappear the bottom first, or if, um, if someone could demonstrate to me that there was actually a 500 year Satanic conspiracy in the Catholic church going at some point to suppress the truth of this. And, and there were some hidden CIA documents about putting bases all around the Arctic.

Okay. I wanna have these points again. Not cause I think any of this is true, but, Cause I think like if I don’t. If I just make assumptions there, I’ll start making assumptions elsewhere and I’ll dismiss other things and one day I’ll get it wrong. So I made myself have a falsification point for, for round Earth theory.

And in the same way, I just think you have to have some kind of falsification point for virology. You have to say, Well, how many things is it allowed to get wrong before you say maybe what they think they’re seeing down those electron microscopes isn’t what they’re actually seeing.

[00:30:36] Alex Tsakiris: Yeah, no. Tell us about your interview with, uh, Dr. Merriness. I’ve pulled it up on the screen. We’ve talked about it. I thought it was phenomenal. It was super important. It was. Deeply scientific, I think, for people to really follow it and understand the subtleties of what she’s saying.

So tell us who she is and then tell us about the interview, because again, this is something else that completely contradicts your no virus thing.

[00:31:02] Richard Cox: Okay. Dr. Marinas has a background working with the, uh, an virus in, in security theater, and relevant to the Covid story. She was one of the first people to realize, Blow the whistle, so to speak, on the doses of hydroxychloroquine that were being used in trials around the world and saying, Hey, these doses are far higher, far higher than what should be used.

[00:31:25] Alex Tsakiris: Break that down a little bit. That, that whole thing cuz we’re gonna forget. There’s so many aspects to the Covid pandemic, , conspiracy that, you know, they, they get lost at some point. And also remind us that, uh, this Dr. Me Mass, she’s like super highly credentialed, respected, not only as a physician in New York, but in all these multitude of research, peoples panels, fellowships.

Super. Yep. Absolutely. And she comes out, she comes out against the covid thing and man, they, they go after her even get her

[00:32:00] Richard Cox: license pull. Like, I can’t remember the exact details of her, um, biography or how her. Battles are going with medical authorities in, in states she lives in and if it’s gone to court or what’s going on.

But that’s all been a thing. She was, um, I think struck off. I think that’s what happened due to her promotion of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for Covid 19. She was a big supporter of that. But she, hydroxychloroquine is obviously the drug that Trump politicized. It became well made famous. He became this politicized draw where Republicans loved it and Democratic Democrats hate it,

It was based on whether you like Donald, Donald Trump or not. It was kind of crazy. But not a lot of people are aware that there were really substantial trials went on hydroxy chorine, um, prior to Donald Trump. Better mentioning it in April, May, June of 2020. And Merril Nas is one of the doctors who highlighted the doses being used in these trials was, uh, toxic.

Now, the other one, the, the, the interview you brought on screen there wasn’t my interview of me Nas, that was a, a post interview clip I made where I contrasted her thoughts with the thoughts of Dr. Kla Coline, who was a European doctor who noticed the same thing. It’s been fed back to him that he may have prevented hydroxychloroquine trials in Germany by going on the German media and talking about the toxic doses.

So I did a fair bit to establish that yes, that is indeed true. The doses were, I think depending how you look at it, it’s either you can, if you look at it a certain way, you can say that’s like, um, 900% more hydroxychloroquine was used than is typically used in a trial. And, um, the, the trials were stopped and it ended in Brazil, it ended in a, a legal case.

Okay. But the question I wanted to pose to Dr. Nas particularly on this look at the controversy, is that the book Virus mania heavily implied that those trials contributed to the excess mortality scene in European countries. So in Great Britain, for example, you’re seeing 10,000 excess deaths a week, and there’s the heavy implication of virus, mainly that the trials are part of that.

And, um, Dr. Marin. Said, and I think she’s completely correct about this, That’s wrong. Okay. Because the, the trials are being run of a few hundred people. So as compared to the total mortality rate, it’s a blip. So I did that particularly to get a critique off the no virus position. Now I don’t think it’s dead in the water.

Okay. Because it could be, And the, the book virus made, it also indicates this, the hydroxychloroquine was being you used at a dose comparable to the trials in hospitals across European, European countries. And that’s one of the reasons, maybe several reasons why you get, like Spain has the biggest death spike in Europe.

Portugal right next door has nothing. It’s a complete flat line. Um, Germany has minimal, minimal excess death, whereas France very high, Belgian very high. And apparently, uh, I’m checked this directly, but it’s, it’s Switzerland apparently breaks down according to the cantons. So the virus mania paradigm is the, the, the deaf just seeing are, uh, eugen, um, um, doctor induced medical, that’s classic colon paradigm.

So really, I was getting a critique of that because if that’s true, Then we need to get precise on what’s causing that. And we can’t say it’s trials. If it’s not. And if it’s not true, then we need to say, Okay, well there was this dangerous virus going around and Portugal avoided it by locking down on time.

But there’s obviously problems with that cuz Sweden didn’t lock down and they got a mild hum in, in the cals. So I, I, I was trying to shed light by trying to, I think that’s like really, to me, establishing what caused those death spikes is the most important question in the world. Because if there’s not a big scary death spike, there’s no justification for masking lockdowns, compulsory vaccinations, any of it.

So I want to get precise in that, even if the, like, the answers to come back, um, contradict the position that I’m investigating, that they were egen and me NASAs answer. Did she, she took deaths out of that categor.

[00:35:34] Alex Tsakiris: Okay. So you’re kind of burying the lead, , none of her research, none of the, It wasn’t her research, Her research was kind of a, an investigation into a multitude of studies that were done by these antiviral medications and their, whether or not they were efficacious in people who were, I think they were, most of ’em were in icu.

Uh, from, from Covid. I mean, none of the shit you’re saying makes any sense if there’s no virus, none of Merrill NASA’s work. , and again, it’s not our work. None of these studies would make any sense if there’s no virus. Do you, do you understand the contradiction in what you’re saying? Forget for a second, the other thing you’re dealing with in the spike in deaths and all that, the fundamental underlying research, Would it make any sense.

Giving someone Hydro Chloroquine, giving someone Ivo Mein and then measuring whether or not the, the mortality rate after they’d had been admitted for covid, it, it presupposes the existence of a virus. So you, you, it stands totally in contrast with this wacky, no virus, no rabies

[00:36:52] Richard Cox: shit. It presupposes the hydroxychloroquine and a iec iin treat.

What is demonstrably going wrong with the person? It doesn’t presuppose that is viral. I IECs anti parasitic. Cause it’s not, and it’s hard to go from the lab resorts of what it’s doing to why that would then work in a person. So I know this is something that, that, um, Dr. Uh, Dei rancor, uh, the Canadian, um, emphasized that he thought that the reason you get a spike in.

Covid deaths in the Southern United States, particularly is because they’re bacterial infections. And what you see for, for, he presented statistics in his paper showing that the, um, prescriptions of antibiotics dropped immensely, um, during 20 20, 20 21. And that this accounts for why you have the rising covid deaths, cuz they, the bacterial infections are being misdiagnosed as a virus and not being treated.

So he suggests that iin would also work on.

[00:37:50] Alex Tsakiris: Well, two, two points. The first is, I think you’re kind of sliding off the, the issue of, you know, if you take it really kind of block dumb simple, you have all these people who are being admitted to the hospital and tested for the existence of the covid antibodies in their blood, which again, you’d have to just kind of throw that out the window, but they, they, there are these people.

Again, I, I just, it, it’s so illogical that it doesn’t make any sense, but there’s this group of people, and then you’re going to not treat some of them, and then you’re gonna treat other ones and you’re gonna measure the result. I mean, that’s all we can ever do with these medical experiments. It does become a statistical kind of thing.

So in the same way that when you asked Meryl Mass about this crazy, uh, Andrew Kaufman, you know, kind of there is no virus. She was like, Of course. That’s ridiculous. And she came out and she said, This guy’s ridiculous. He’s a fraud. He isn’t even a, a scientist, he’s a psychiatrist. And, but then, She, she won’t even talk on that anymore because she got so much pushback in just, again, calling out how stupid the no virus thing is.

Yeah. She

[00:39:01] Richard Cox: refuses to address it. So she’s written papers, she’s written articles on it, but then refuses to address it further. She can to

[00:39:06] Alex Tsakiris: be, Cause she already addressed it in the papers and she said the guy’s a total quack. So what is that, you know, switching to the stuff I’m interested in that supports the idea that this no virus thing is the SIOP is one of the siop cuz there’s a million of them.

But yeah, when she gets slapped down for saying the obvious that this guy is a quack, uh, you know, that,

[00:39:28] Richard Cox: I dunno, I dunno if she was slapped down, she was doing the slapping at some point she critiqued a paper that Toson toss an angle Breck wrote, and he’s a journalist who was part of the Virus mania book along with Klas Coline and there was another doctor, um, with a European name I can’t recall.

And so, yeah, I, I sent the interview to Tosen Ebrt, the journalist, and he wasn’t, Breast, either he, he felt no me Ash hadn’t answered any of his positions, but it’s ni on impossible to get any of these people in the same room together. Like people don’t talk across paradigms like. Last, this, this is the close that you’ll get.

And there’s two people that want five

[00:40:00] Alex Tsakiris: months. There’s no, there’s no happen, there’s no paradigm involved in, I mean, I still don’t see that you’re, I mean, maybe we’re disagreeing, but like none of what Meryl Mass is saying would even fundamentally makes sense to even investigate or talk about if there wasn’t a Covid virus.

And you kind of slipped into the kind of, uh, crazy land where like maybe all these people in the hospital are, are not, I don’t know if you’re saying that they’re not sick or that they’re sick, but they don’t have covid or that they all pass the Covid test because they’re all in the hospital and they were tested for Covid and they tested positive for Covid.

And that’s your sample size. But then, I don’t know what you’re saying after that is that then we can’t measure or not whether or not, , in this case, in this case, hydro chloroquine can be effective. I, I don’t understand what you’re saying. It’s completely illogical.

[00:40:54] Richard Cox: Well, I’m saying if you. Witness a massive decrease in the number of antibiotic prescriptions.

Then you’ve gotta wonder like what happened to all the people getting bacterial infections?

[00:41:05] Alex Tsakiris: But that’s a separate issue. That’s a separate issue. Right Richard? And we’ll get to that. That’s the second point that I was gonna bring up about germ theory. But back to me, Na, when she’s saying cuz like, we’re gonna get way deep here, but that’s okay cuz you did in your show.

And that’s why I like the show so much. The, the subtlety that Meryl Nas brought to that is she said, Look, there’s all these people getting admitted to the hospital and they’re, when they come in, they’re tested for whether or not they have covid, they get a positive covid test. And then they wanted to see if HCH Chloroquine could be effective.

So they gave them doses of Hydro Chloroquine, and then they measured whether or not they got better. So, None of that works unless Covid is what we think Covid is. You don’t get different results. You don’t get this pattern, you da da. But what she said, the, the whole meat and potatoes of what she was trying to say, that again just gets kind of totally pushed aside by the crazy no virus folks is that she goes, Look, what these motherfuckers did, which was so subtle, is that we’ve known for a long time that this hydro chloroquine is a tricky drug and that you don’t, if you overdose just a little bit, you start getting some pretty bad side effects.

So what they did in these studies is they just pushed the dosage up just a little bit. My reading of it may be a little bit different than yours. It wasn’t like 900%. It was just enough to get what, what they wanted, which is a null result. The null result was, hey, if you give ’em hydro chloroquine or if you don’t give ’em hydro chloroquine, it doesn’t matter because they’re still dying at this rate.

So that was the goal of it, was to show that , Hydro chloroquine yielded a null result in these studies. What she then showed, and what you reported on, is that if you do it correct with the proper dosage of hch chloroquine like they did in the Brazil study that you referenced, it turns out to be very efficacious again, which makes no sense if you’re a no virus person, no sense at all.

But makes sense if you understand the antiviral qualities of hydro chloroquine, . Now, do you see what I’m saying about how there’s a, a contradiction there?

How you can’t, you can’t kind of have both ways. You can’t have, there is no virus and then at the same time be doing these rather sophisticated, uh, medical experiments that you documents on treating the virus.

[00:43:46] Richard Cox: Yeah. Just to say I might wanna back off that 900 figure, I can’t quite remember. I did say it was the most extreme figure you could calculate.

Cause it depends how you look at it. And the, the dosing of hydro score and studies just went on for a lot, lot longer over a continuous period of days. So most extreme figure I get is like, if you take the end day, Of like the 14 days, whatever, and compare it to the two or three days people are usually on for parasitic infections or whatever it is.

Then you get this massive increase, but within 24 hours it was something like a 50% increase in 24 and a hundred percent increase in 28. And what people say is, is a very low therapeutic to toxic threshold with hydroxychloroquine. So you’d have to give that much more before it’s, it’s damaging. Um, yeah, that, that was certainly marilyn’s attention.

That was just like a deliberate hit. And it is weird cause I went as far as looking at the, the scientific papers where they established, uh, what would be safe and what wouldn’t, and pictures of the doctor’s faces appear on this who were doing this and it’s very strange experience to look at them and think we, Were you deliberately setting the dose too high or were you just like idiotic in what you were doing or, It’s very, very, very strange question.

But certainly it has that effect, right, of, um, of rubbishing the effect of the drugs and making it, uh, appear dangerous. Maybe if it was rolled out on mass and I just don’t know that, that it was, uh, at the same time the studies were going on, then it would also have had the effect of, uh, lifting the defe.

But to speak to, does it, um, do you, does it prove if, if Hydrox, Hydro, Hydro, chloroquine, hydro Chloroquine, and hydro mein are effective, uh, does that prove the, uh, it’s a viral origin of covid? Well, it just, obviously people aren’t going to the hospital because they’re feeling great. There’s obviously something wrong with them, and those drugs are treating that thing.

If it’s demonstrated to be effective, I don’t think it necessarily proves that that thing is viral, especially when ivec is, is, um, anti parasitic to begin. ,

[00:45:34] Alex Tsakiris: right? But they’re being tested for whether or not they have the covid antibodies, so then people can spin off on all of that. But when you put it all together, it doesn’t, it doesn’t make any sense.

Like, this is like basic experimental science. Like what is your group? How do you control the group? Well, the control in this group was do they test positive for covid? Do they not just show the symptoms, but do they test positive based on this test we have? And that is how we separate, that’s like the entry ticket into controlling this experiment.

So, no, it, it doesn’t, it, it, you can’t go into this kind of la la land. Like, you know, maybe they had, uh, viral, maybe they didn’t. No, we tested them for that with the,

[00:46:21] Richard Cox: the testing. Well, that is a fairly substantial part of the no virus case, and I have to say, it goes over my head, but the idea that the, uh, the PCR test is not effective.

[00:46:30] Alex Tsakiris: Well, no, what they’re really saying, if you really look at it, and again, some of the best work for this comes from the people who are against the pandemic. And yet, that’s why I think you gotta look at the SIOP here. When, when the people like, like Dell Big Tree, uh, you know, Del Big Tree is right?

Mm-hmm. , he came out early and was very much saying, This is pandemic. This is pandemic, this is not great. And he did the best thing on the PCR test. He said what, what they’re doing is they’re upcycling the. Right. So they’re increasing multiple times and they’re generating a lot of false positives, right?

Mm-hmm. . So it’s not that the test is completely ineffective, it’s just if you have a test with enough false positives, it would never be anything that someone uses. But now, if you buy like off the shelf, like my wife did when she was sick, if you buy the off the shelf PCR test down at your local drugstore, what they say is, Look, this is a pretty shitty test.

It’s pretty ineffective. But if you take a, take it two times, 48 hours a point, and they both come up positive, you can be pretty sure that you have it. And then you can go into your doctor and they can actually do the blood test. And when you get all those confirmed, the ch, the, the chances are that you have covid.

You know, you, you do. There’s no way. So there’s no way around that. Again, the misinformation about there is no vi, none of that stuff would be possible. If there were no viruses and you couldn’t have like the, the basic idea of of of like, that’s what I’m saying, fundamentally behind the, the marrow mass thing.

And I think what I sense when you talk to her or when anyone talks to her is when someone goes down this moonshot crazy, there is no viruses stuff, they just kind of check out cuz it’s like they’re not gonna talk to somebody who is in this flat earth camp. But what she’s saying, I think is that, look, that doesn’t make any sense in that you couldn’t test all these people.

And have all them have the symptoms and positive test if there wasn’t a virus. And that’s just the starting point to what we really wanted to test as to whether or not Hch Chloroquine was effective. So it’s Do you get, I uh, the, the kind of built in frustration that I have a little bit, but not that much cuz I’m totally in the game of conspiracy a lot more than other people are.

But do you get that sense when you talk to people who really kind of know the science and they just kind of check out with all this wacky, no virus stuff?

[00:49:08] Richard Cox: Well, certainly Marinna did and I have to just acknowledge I’m up against my limit now in terms of what I can speak. I can’t speak to. Testing all of them parroting what I hear people saying and saying, Well, this is what they, you know, the testing is, is ineffective and there’s no isolation of either covid, no, no meaningful isolation.

But

[00:49:25] Alex Tsakiris: how would that make sense? I can, So, so just common sense. How would that, how would that make sense then Richard? How would it make sense that you test these people and they’re sick, they have the symptoms and they’re positive on the test, and you have other healthy people who take the test and they’re negative and you do that over and over again.

How would that make any sense?

[00:49:46] Richard Cox: Well, it could be testing for something that’s to do with obviously with them being sick. Okay. Like a, a breakdown, like, So to go back to the electron microscope, When the virus and no virus can’t look down at, they’re seeing the same thing. But when the virus can’t look down, they’re saying, Okay, that that’s a virus down there.

We’re seeing a little squiggly thing with the, the crown like proteins on or whatever. And the no virus people are saying, No, that’s, that’s tissue breaking down due toxification due to some kind of illness. So if the test is testing for the presence of that thing, then it’s saying that thing is there, but it’s either a virus or the breakdown tissue.

And again, I’m not saying that’s a good explanation. So for the audience, please don’t, you know, take that to the background. But that’s, um, it’s just one logical way that that could be the case. It seems to be inherent in the whole fact that there is a disagreement that the test could be showing different things.

[00:50:33] Alex Tsakiris: Okay, hold on here, folks. This is what you’ve been waiting for. We’re about to have a breakthrough here, a logical breakthrough. So Richard, you are a little biotech startup and you’re gonna manufacture this test for c. You’re not part of the pandemic in particular. You’re just a guy trying to make a buck.

You know, you’ve already do all these other tests and now you’re gonna do this test. Okay. Can, what do you, what do you have to show in order for your test to be accepted, to be used? I mean, can you just do, can you just totally fake it? Can you just put out a totally, totally fake test that don’t, doesn’t really do anything.

It just randomly comes up. Positive, negative. Is that gonna work? Is that gonna pass muster with consumers?

[00:51:25] Richard Cox: No. I suppose, and again, look, I’m getting very specul here, but I suppose you would have to have a test that lights up when the presence of whatever it is that we’re calling covid 19 is there to some degree of accuracy.

But it doesn’t necessarily mean that that thing that is being picked up by the test is a virus. Like that’s the point of contention.

[00:51:49] Alex Tsakiris: How do you suppose you would do that? Because what they, the way they did it was they’re testing for the virus antibodies. So how would you do it? Given in this world that you’re in, where there are no viruses there, how would you make your test work so you can make money?

So you can sell it to, but there

[00:52:10] Richard Cox: are biological entities that are being identified as viruses,

[00:52:14] Alex Tsakiris: , Right. But they, again, they’re gonna have to match up with symptoms. So people are sick, they’re gonna go to the store. Yes. And they’re gonna buy and, and then you’re also in your testing, in your testing before you put this out on the market.

Cuz it can’t, we already agreed you can’t just do a total sham test or a total sham uh, uh, thing. So you’re gonna have to do some internal testing. You’re gonna have to take people who are sick and, uh, and then you’re gonna have to take people who are healthy and you’re gonna have to give ’em your little instant test.

So how are you gonna run? How are you gonna run that test to see whether or not your test is efficacious

[00:52:51] Richard Cox: because the tissue is picking up? Okay. And again, I have to say it, I’m being very hypothetically here. Um, the tissue, sort of like the tissue being picked up on it, it could be that’s a tissue that appears in the presence of sickness.

Whether that sickness is a virus or a detoxification process, that’s the thing that’s up for debate. Or if you aim the test at that, it’s gonna pick up on it and you can say, Oh, that’s a virus, or, or it’s the how tissue breaks down on detoxification. And that, that seems to be the central split in how that’s interpreted.

So it is plausible to have a test that would pick up on sickness and a certain type of sickness.

[00:53:25] Alex Tsakiris: Well, , Oh, you, you, you just realized kind of your problem there when you add a particular type of sickness, cuz now we’re talking about a very particular set of symptoms around this thing called covid 19. So you’re, you’re just getting into kind of territory that just doesn’t, it doesn’t make any sense.

And again, so back to your little laboratory, uh, you would also have to have, because this is an instant test, you wanna crank these things out so that people can just do ’em, uh, really quickly with the saliva in their mouth kind of thing. And then it’s gonna be backed up with the blood test that they’re gonna do, where they’re gonna do a more comprehensive test.

So that’s gonna be your standard. Inside your little biotech company by which you compare whether your test is effective. Like is my little saliva test working in the same way as the blood test does? And I’m hoping that at this point you see that in order for you to do any of this work effectively, you will have to have a working understanding of this virus, a working understanding of it.

You are not at the level of just saying, Well let’s see this tissue that it, You couldn’t do it. You couldn’t manufacture these things. You couldn’t test to see whether they’re effective. It just wouldn’t work

[00:54:45] Richard Cox: right. To be, to be honest, I, I’m outta my death with the testing because nothing about the testing convinced me that vi well convinced me to put the no virus position on the table.

So I think I’ve just gotta acknowledge this cuz your audience is gonna go getting increasingly bad arguments from me from here on in. Cause it’s just, you would need to bring someone who’s really studied the, the testing. I’m my basis for. Putting the low virus position on the table is what I’ve already said regarding that.

There are these really strong other corporates for polio and HIV and a lot of the covid deaths and the inefficacy of the vaccination program, et cetera. And I’m, I’m sort of trying my best with the, the testing, but I, I’m concerned I’m not representing a position that other people could represent very.

[00:55:29] Alex Tsakiris: Yeah. This is what people always say when they kind of reach a, a, a point where they can’t do it. Look the, well, Alex, the virus, the testing and the vaccine are all related. And when people break them out and say, Well, I, I don’t know about the testing. The testing is the virus.

There’s no, you, you can’t separate it out as its own category. The vaccine is the virus. When we talked about the mmr, , autism connection, it’s about the virus. So a again, all that stuff is out the window for the no virus people, but we’ve pounded on that enough. The other thing I would say that always described me crazy about the germ people, , it’s all this focus on virus, but oh, bacteria, uh, that, that’s something that’s some, that’s a whole different category, you know, anthrax or collar, any risk of that, cuz we can see it in a microscope. You know, that, that, that, that isn’t in our, uh, purvey of, uh, of this kind of wacky germ theory versus terrain theory thing.

Why doesn’t bacteria fall into the same category of as viruses?

[00:56:30] Richard Cox: I, I don’t know. I perhaps Cause of what you said, it’s a large entities that are visible and do float around cause and disease. I, I imagine there might be some split in that. I, I don’t know.

[00:56:41] Alex Tsakiris: I think it’s kind of funny cuz we’ve always talk about the kotch postulates and you know, this guy back at 1870 and isolation and stuff like that, he isolated bacteria. That was the first thing that he did. And the whole idea of germ theory is that, ?Is that before that no one would believe that there were these things that couldn’t be seen that were causing disease.

And that was the breakthrough that these guys did. And like you’ve reported on in your show, and everyone has, you know, Lister was famous for the, , antiseptic surgical techniques where he, he insisted, you know, that, uh, doctors washed their hands after giving birth so that they didn’t, And you know, all of a sudden infectious diseases went way down.

Cause these doctors, they, Hey, my hands are clean. There’s, there’s not, there can’t be anything there. So again, this wacky, no virus stuff. Go read what these people say.

[00:57:33] Richard Cox: Nothing to do with bacterial infections.

[00:57:35] Alex Tsakiris: Right. That it totally does. See the guy who last had on your show, right? , Daniel Thompson Mills. Yeah. He’s all about terrain theory versus germ theory. Mm-hmm. . So, uh, germ theory includes bacteria. It isn’t limited to viruses. So when he’s pushing back against, , germ theory, he’s not distinguishing, he’s not saying, Oh yeah, well, you know, bacteria are a c totally separate category of these invisible small little things that can be linked to disease.

It’s just, no one talks about it. This whole thing is a sigh

[00:58:09] Richard Cox: up man. Yeah. So I’m not saying that about bacteria. Daniel said some things which. I thought was speculative. Some things which felt very sensible and some things which I thought were wrong, and I did push back on certain things. Had he taken from Tom’s work, Like apparently Tom has an idea that when post forms around a splinter, that’s the body pushing the splinter out.

[00:58:30] Alex Tsakiris: Oh, great. I, I hadn’t heard that one before, but that’s a classic,

[00:58:34] Richard Cox: and when I pushed on that and said, Well, what’s the pieces for that? And he was just to quoting Tom Cow, he, he didn’t have one. So there’s some certainly certain things that I’m very cynical. Okay. And I’m not personally going down.

The bacterial infections don’t exist at all. I think it’s just really demonstrable. They do. So I’m, I’m just not, that’s not

[00:58:52] Alex Tsakiris: an idea that I’m, What’s, what’s the distinction you’re making there between, uh, bacterial infections and viral infections?

[00:58:58] Richard Cox: I couldn’t describe it in the terms of biology, bacterial living things.

Aren’t they in viruses? Aren’t them much smaller? I couldn’t describe the biology of it.

[00:59:06] Alex Tsakiris: Well, the vi viruses are clearly living things, right. I mean,

[00:59:10] Richard Cox: I didn’t, I don’t think so. I thought they’re not technically alive. I could be wrong about that. I thought that was quick. Google might. Yeah.

[00:59:20] Alex Tsakiris: I mean, they’re alive or they wouldn’t be, they wouldn’t be multiplying.

Are viruses living? That’s a question that,

look at this. So, , most biologists say no, viruses are not made out of cells. They can’t keep themselves in a stable state.

[00:59:34] Richard Cox: So I think that’s one factor that makes people skeptical of them, that a non-living thing can do all these things attributed to them. It’s not my complaint. My complaint is, well with bacterial infections. You could identify the bacteria and it seems to be causal. There’s not some other thing you can put in there to suggest, Hey, this is causing all the diseases.

Whereas with some viruses that’s present, as I explained, with, with polio, et cetera. Right.

[00:59:57] Alex Tsakiris: So I, I guess as I keep going through, uh, Google Viruses are considered both living and non-living. This is due to the fact that viruses possess the characteristics of both living and non-living.

, for instance, viruses can reproduce inside a host just like any other living organism, disability , to reproduces loss when viruses outside the host cell.

I still think you’re gonna have a hard time but I understand your distinction. I don’t wanna dismiss it. I, understand that there’s a distinction between viruses and bacteria that could feed into, , what they’re saying.

[01:00:31] Richard Cox: Mm-hmm.

[01:00:33] Alex Tsakiris: Okay. How should we move towards, uh, wrapping this up? Do you wanna have some kind of closing?

[01:00:41] Richard Cox: Well, maybe

another aspect of this, which might be interesting to talk about just cause I think we we’re gonna start going around in circles with the virology thing and we, we’ve said, what we’ve said is your perception.

It’s either a SIOP or at any rate, it’s something that’s very, very bad to have in because it introduces all this craziness into what we need to have, which is focused resistance against Covid. Okay? And the Covid agenda and whatever covid 2.0 is, which is gonna come down, it’s already heading towards us.

And this is, for me, I see a repetition of what happened with nine 11 where you, you ha everyone has a different kind of crazy line with nine 11. So you get people who think that it was all a geopolitical, uh, games being played by the cia and they were trying to manage the, uh, ultimate hijackers, but they lost control of them.

And then you get people who say, No, that’s, that’s not far enough. Um, they were, try, they, they were managing the hijackers so they could do the operation. And the first group think the second group is crazy, but the second group think, the people who say bombs in the buildings are crazy. The people who say think bombs in the buildings are crazy.

Um, People say that there were bombs in the buildings. They think the holographic plane people that are crazy. And what you have is this massive amount of infighting. Cause everyone thinks it’s very important that no one to the left or the right of them should be included in the movement. And I just see that pattern repeating and it’s been a very depressing thing for me to see how no one will talk across ideological lines with the c ology questions.

Everyone just goes into their silo and that’s it. And this is, you know, from us to entirely non experts on this who, who, you know, read what we’ve read on it, uh, but do not spend our lives staring at electro microscopes. This is the closest thing that exists to a dialogue on this topic almost, you know, which is, it’s quite depressing really.

So it’s that perception. I, I suppose where I’m differing their Alex is I don’t necessarily, and I can’t see intellectual expansiveness as being a bad thing. Okay. So if people are just on a, on a pure science level, I think. Science progresses through conflict of opposites. Okay? This prota re and sentiment that you make the weaker argument, the stronger and thereby advance the motion of the whole.

So I think that by interjecting, uh, an alternative paradigm, and that could be creationism in the evolutionary story, then you, you look at, or it could be the no virus camp, even if it’s not ultimately true, even if it’s not ultimately true, then by looking at things that way, they are gonna see things that other people won’t like.

Who is it that’s going to see that the, um, the bones we’re saying on the missing links aren’t really the missing links. Well, there be people that don’t believe in, in evolution. And who is it that’s going to see the polio maybe wasn’t caused by a virus or after all it was, it was, um, environmental factors.

Well, quite likely people who are very, very, very cynical about the existence of viruses at all. So to me, pluralism is a healthy thing for the advancement of knowledge and an uncertainty on issues that we don’t know about. Embodying that uncertainty is a healthy thing too. I’m not just talking about like outright fence sitting, but.

A movement of the fence in both directions into into one side and then the other and coming back to the fence. All of this seems very healthy to me. And then I don’t, I don’t think you see it that way. I think you see it as something that’s detracting from what should be more focused. So how do we square that circle?

[01:03:53] Alex Tsakiris: Well, this is something that you’ve, uh, mentioned to me in the past and particularly with, , nine 11. And the example you gave was somebody starts out with flat earth, you know, and they eventually over time go, Wow, that was pretty crazy. Don’t remind me. But it opens them up to looking at nine 11, so they were moving in these circles where those two issues within the circle of people they came in contact with were equally crazy. Like you’re saying you believe in flat earth, you believe in nine 11, they’re the same, and now the person goes through this process like you’re saying, and they go, , Yeah, flat earth is kind of goofy, but nine 11 turns out to be, you know, have a lot of substance to it.

And I, I’ve had, we’ve had this conversation before where, you know, you kind of hold that up and that’s undeniable. I mean, shoot, we’ve all been there , we’ve all been there personally The reason I like science, even though I still think science is wrong about almost everything, cuz it doesn’t incorporate into consciousness, is that I do think it is important to have, especially in these times where information is being manipulated, is being controlled.

There are all these syop, there all are all these agendas. Undeniable, you know, when you go into these other fields. We, we, we hold to some basic principles and standards, both in terms of science and in terms of logic and reason. And I don’t think it’s a good idea to jump off just for a little while so that I can come back on with a fresh perspective.

I accept that maybe that works for some people, but I don’t think in general that’s a good path and I think it’s just rot with all sorts of potential manipulation to me. Just follow the data wherever it leads. In the case of, of viruses, , you know, to make that case and advance that case, you would have to contemplate a conspiracy going back hundreds of years.

Involving thousands and thousands of scientists who’ve published peer review papers that you can look up , and then analyze and other people have analyzed them. And you’d have to say all that was some kind of organized effort to bring us to this point in this discussion between Richard and Alex , to confuse the issue because what’s really going on is there’s no viruses to me that is just only an inch or two above the flat earth stuff.

[01:06:27] Richard Cox: So I completely disagree about it necessitating a conspiracy. And what I think is that in some ways we still live in the middle Ages, and this is maybe, maybe this is a fundamental point of contention, but in some ways we don’t. When I look at my window and I see a giant flying robot moving through the sky, that’s the end point of a process of where we have become in some way better at interrogating the natural world.

Coming up with science and building technology off that science. So we are in some ways, fundamentally different in the way we think than we were in the past, as is evidenced by the world around us. But in another way, I don’t think we are. And I think that other way is that we’re still very, very bad at questioning our core assumptions.

And this is, um, Thomas Coon’s point about the way people come into science is it’s more like learning a trade. So when my electrician comes around and, and does the wiring in the house, like he may be very competent at that, but I don’t necessarily expect to be able to have a conversation of him about the nature of electricity or whether nickel Tesla was right about transmitting it wirelessly through the air.

I mean, you know, I’m sure you get very philosophical electricians, but I’m not, that’s not in the training Okay. To question the nature of things. And I think science is essentially the same with that, where people are initiated into a profession by having to compress a learning into a tight space of time and regurgitated for exams.

Inside an existing paradigm, and then they can go their entire career under pressure to always produce and always move on without ever questioning the foundation they’re standing on. And I, I think that’s why you can have sciences that are people pour their expertise into, spend their lifetime studying and they can still be wrong about the fundamentals.

And that, that occurs in lots of different ways. I, I’ve just produced a podcast on the history of the First World War questioning whether historians have been locked into respect, a perspective that excuses, uh, the British complicity in starting the war. I’m looking at, uh, a podcast on, on the science of memory and I’m, I’m realizing that a lot of own dependings of certain branches of psychotherapy really went down a wrong path with very destructive resorts cuz people don’t question the foundation.

So in all areas of human knowledge, I think this can exist and that’s why you don’t need a conspiracy to account for massive errors existing over time and, and space.

[01:08:43] Alex Tsakiris: Yeah, I think you have to be really careful when you draw these analogies and , the part that I think. Totally runs against what you’re saying is the engineering , uh, medical devices, medical cures, medical science, you know, So kind of like I’m saying, I think the, the strongest argument you can go back and kind of contemplate a little bit is like if you were gonna come up with a test for C that tested your saliva and you know, indicated whether or not you had covid and you wanted to cross correlate it with the effectiveness of the blood test.

You know, and there are two different means of getting at the same thing. You can’t engineer shit and make it work if you don’t have a command of the science. It’s kind of like you can’t build a computer, you can’t build a modem, you can’t build , , an iPhone if you don’t have a command of how an integrated circuit works.

You can’t just kind of. Wish it to be so, or speculate on it. It’s in the engineering where, which a lot of times leaves behind what you’re talking about in terms of the, the philosophical, , underpinnings of some of this stuff. , the engineering of it is where it really kind of is all revealed. And I’d say the same is true with the vaccines.

The vaccines are the engineering of the virus and that their existence, , completely is counter to the idea that there are no viruses. It’s like, you know, it was like the other thing about the covid is it’s not only a virus, it’s a bio weapon. They built it in a fucking lab, in a lab where they were building other dangerous, , viruses and weaponizing other dangerous diseases.

Again, like on a rant for a little bit longer. Cause we didn’t talk about this topic. Notice how that is effectively moved off to the side with this siop, Hey, there is no viruses, so let’s not worry about our bio weapon labs and the Chinese bio weapon labs because there are no viruses. Gain a function, fauci all that.

That’s off the table. There are no viruses, they can’t be working to improve the gain of function of the virus. Cause there are no viruses. Yeah. Do you, do you understand

[01:11:09] Richard Cox: the absurd Oh, I, I, I entirely agree. Everyone who thinks there’s a virus and it’s a bio weapon, thinks the no virus thing is a scam to detract from that.

And everyone who’s into the no virus thing thinks that the, uh, gain of function in the Chinese laboratories is a scam to detract from the fact there’s no . How could that,

[01:11:24] Alex Tsakiris: Explain to me, since you’re in that camp, how do they explain away the, the gain of function research, I mean, explain to me , how they explain that away. No

[01:11:31] Richard Cox: idea. But I’m, I hope that the audience listen into this has gained some value from what I have said, but I would be going into areas that I just don’t have a clue about if I even went

[01:11:39] Alex Tsakiris: there, Alex. So, rationally, logically, how does that make any sense to you?

[01:11:44] Richard Cox: I don’t know. I just can’t look because two years ago, the whole no virus thing at all didn’t make sense to me. So I, I just don’t know. I know they talk about it. I just don’t know about it.

[01:11:53] Alex Tsakiris: Richard, think about it for a minute. Think just anything you, again, you said that there were just two people who, who don’t know that much.

Again, this is back to my point of logic, , basic logic, basic reason. How can you have published studies on gain a function of the weaponization of these viruses if viruses don’t even exist? How could you have people studying that? How could you have these bio

weapons?

[01:12:19] Richard Cox: I don’t know. We have heard Mark Bailey make the exact opposite point and say, Well, the reason this research never comes to anything and the reason you have chemical warfare but no biological warfare rolled out is because it’s completely ineffective, because it’s built on a false paradigm.

So it is addressed. But I would, my, the poverty of my reply would be such that it is not worth giving. I just, I just, I’m out. I dunno. I do that

[01:12:40] Alex Tsakiris: one. Okay, so as a result of this, you’re gonna get to the bottom of it cuz you agree that is completely logically inconsistent. That whole body of research, which is gain a function.

It it, it’s not only would it not be like the, even the part you said about that guy who said it never works, it’s like, no, I mean they publish all these papers and say that this is what they did and here’s the results that they got and all the rest of that. You, you would have to create a u a a world where that is, how would you even explain that?

That they’re just kind of making that up or that they’re, it’s passing peer review or that they’re not really doing the experiments. I mean, I didn’t even know logically how that would, even, how you would put that

argument together.

[01:13:24] Richard Cox: I don’t know. But it doesn’t, if you consider like the, the body of work that must exist on hiv.

Okay? And if it doesn’t cause aids, that body of work can just be taken and put straight into the bin. But there must be thousands of thousands of scientists who have worked on that problem and thousands and thousands sites of work on the polio problem. Either the guy you had in your show is wrong or all that research goes in the bin.

And I don’t think it’s, Cuz they’re all into conspiracy.

[01:13:49] Alex Tsakiris: No. It’s because they’re looking

at something. No, see that’s, that’s not how, how it is. And that’s not the case with the hiv aids thing. And this is, again, the cyop is like, The, the hiv aids thing, when Henry Bauer was on there and the people he talked is not, that viruses don’t exist, not that AIDS isn’t connected to a virus, it’s just that it’s not as simplistic as they’re trying to make it.

It’s analogous to the climate change thing. You know, climate change thing is complicated, man. There’s a lot of things that go into climate, a lot of things that go into all that stuff. So teasing it apart is like, you can always get a different angle. So people can really do work on HIV and AIDS and they can very subtly delude themselves into thinking that they’re seeing an effect or or exaggerating the effect, or they’re calc statistically calin, cuz there really are viruses.

And there really is such a thing as hiv. It’s just they can make subtler little kind of scientific mistakes that we can understand and, and come to these weird, exaggerated conclusions like you’re pointing to. But you can’t do that if there’s no viruses. Right. You can’t, it doesn’t make it, that doesn’t fit back into the equation.

[01:15:13] Richard Cox: Right. Well, I mean, to be fair, Peter Berg, I think the most prominent and renowned critic of the HIV equals AIDS hypothesis, I think he considers there is an HIV virus. It’s just not causing aids. But he also talks about that being a kind of halfway house, that he thinks that’s the direction it’ll go is when people want to move away from this idea that HIV causes aids.

So say, well there are code factors that you have to have to for HIV to develop into aids, but he doesn’t accept that he said no, that the HIV is irrelevant to aids. So again, if he’s correct, then I don’t think the HIV research is, is really worth all that much. Then I, I would say it probably doesn’t need to on the bin.

Well, well if it, But what, what did you just say there, Richard? I mean, look, the people that we really respect, who really know what’s going on, they don’t even give, uh, any credence at all to the, there is no virus nonsense.

Okay. But these are also, so he doesn’t, people that didn’t notice the vaccination program was effect ineffective and didn’t notice that a z t was clearly causing aids and people are not HIV through the eighties and nineties.

So if they can be wrong about that. Also, the people that didn’t notice the D G T polio connection, So I’m saying if they can be wrong about that, is it possible they could be wrong about at least one more virus?

[01:16:24] Alex Tsakiris: They could be wrong. Well, I, I don’t even know. You haven’t even defined what wrong is, but like yeah, it’s, yeah.

Maybe we have hammered it, Hammered it enough.

[01:16:36] Richard Cox: I think it’s going to the forum. Alex, I think this is the, uh, probably, we’re probably going in circles if we, uh,

[01:16:43] Alex Tsakiris: Probably. Okay. Um, yeah, I think we, we have kind of wrapped it up and you kind of told us what’s coming up on, uh, deep state consciousness. Hmm. So I’m sure you’ll, you’ll kind of find your way through it or I’ll find my way through it and I’ll come out and say, There’s no such thing as viruses.

Maybe, who knows? Maybe

[01:17:05] Richard Cox: I’ll, I’ll be writing a letter of apology and posting on the skeptical forum.

[01:17:08] Alex Tsakiris: Otherwise, Yeah. I’ll hold up something to the screen. . Well, thanks for doing this. I do think it’s a, it’s a good dialogue

[01:17:18] Richard Cox: to have. Thank you for having me on. I have found it insightful in ways that conversing and text, I’ve wondered your position and it’s kind, I think, clearer to me now the kind of underpinnings of our thinking that are different and why this arises.

So it’s been very insightful for me. Thank you. Thank you,

[01:17:35] Alex Tsakiris: Thanks again to Richard Cox for joining me today on skipped. Go be sure to check out deep state consciousness.

Podcast really are a lot of excellent, excellent interviews that he’s done

So we hammered this to death. Where did we wind up? The question I would tee up is, do you see why some people think the no virus thing is a CYA op. I mean, it isn’t even worth discussing whether it’s potentially true, whether it’s right. It’s obviously crazy. Just an inter two above flat earth.

But do you think it’s a CYA?

Let me know your thoughts, track me down wherever you can. Skeptical forum is great. If you want to get there, otherwise just find me and let me know your thoughts. Love to hear from

Until next time. Take care. And bye for now.

[box]