Richard Cox, Being Right About No Virus |573|

Alex

Administrator
Richard Cox, Being Right About No Virus |573|
by Alex Tsakiris | Oct 11 | Skepticism
Share
Tweet
Richard Cox is a podcaster and author.
skeptiko-573-richard-cox-300x300.jpg
 
An -ex-colonel of the Russian Spetznaz, with a lot of training in chemical warfare, Vladimir Kvachkov, had the supposed "covid", spent 2 months in IC unit, and he is convinced that "covid"is nothing more than a chemical poisoning, from some sort of a chemical warfare agent. So are quite a few other Russian scientists and doctors, who had this "bug", like forensic psychiatrist Viacheslav Borovskih, who cured this thing at home with Russian anti-multi-chemical poisoning medicine.
 
This was phenomenal work and hats off to both of you.
If the real psyop is getting people to refuse to communicate across ideological lines, I think this type of discussion would be how you defeat it.
 
Alex: “Viruses are clearly living right?”

Yo, my man. Alex. How can you be so arrogant about what you think you know, when you are “googling” the definition of “virus“ in the middle of the conversation?

Google? Wow!! I’m stunned.

I never came into this forum with the intention of changing your mind about anything. At this point, you’ve shown that you don’t actually even have a bit of understanding re: the actual questions being asked. You actually didn’t even know whether “viruses” are alive or not. You think they “multiply” because they’re alive.

This is evidence that the psyop is working. You believe that there are tiny micro organisms that hijack your cells and reprogram them to replicate copies of themselves. That’s what you believe, yet you have the audacity to call other people “wacky”

It’s astounding to me how obnoxious and insulting you can be without actually knowing anything about the topic.

You legit just said, “Viruses are clearly living right?” and then GOOGLED in the middle of an interview. I mean, seriously, you should have edited that out.
 
Alex believes that PCR testing for COVID involves testing the blood, they don't test the blood evidenced by them sticking a swab way up your nose or testing your saliva. Alex also believes that tests used under an EUA, and all of the COVID tests are under EUA have been rigorously tested, the fact is they are not. Alex believes COVID-19 has a very specific set of symptoms, the fact is the symptoms are not very specific.

Kudos for Richard for acknowledging that he's out of his depth with respect to testing. You should follow his lead Alex.

External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws...
 
Last edited:
This whole conversation made clear the distinction between philosophy of science and tech enthusiasm.

It was telling that Alex’s scenario was a “biotech start up company” looking to make money off of a ”pandemic”. They invent a machine that glows when it detects a snippet of genetic material. Wow, cool, when do they prove that the particles actually cause the disease symptoms and aren’t just cellular debris present after cells break down? Never. Not at all. And when you push them on that issue they insult you and refer you to grotesque in vitro experiments and conceptual in silico genomics.

I already know why Alex is in so deeply in love with Virology (Biotech Marketing). Why he lashes out with such venom at those who dare question the existence of the deadly (are they alive Alex?) rabies virus that ravaged his (admittedly) hypothetical childhood doggy.

He’s a sci-fi fan. He loves the story of little tiny terrorists and the brave scientists who are studying them to save humanity. But he doesn’t even start with a working definition of what the thing is that he’s talking about.

I still can’t believe you googled “viruses” in the middle of the show. Damn, man, that was really shabby. I know your show is just for entertainment. All the talk about UFO’s and other dumb shit, but seriously, start with having a working definition of what it is you’re talking about at least. Wow. Just wow.
 
Alex believes that PCR testing for COVID involves testing the blood, they don't test the blood evidenced by then sticking a swab way up your nose or testing your saliva. Alex also believes that tests used under an EUA, and all of the COVID tests are under EUA have been rigorously tested, the fact is they are not. Alex believes COVID-19 has a very specific set of symptoms, the fact is the symptoms are not very specific.

Kudos for Richard for acknowledging that he's out of his depth with respect to testing. You should follow his lead Alex.

External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws...
I thought this was a good explaination... digs into the testing at about 8 min in.
but of course you wouldn't make any sense to people who think there's no virus:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/d7NLLMTDXfSA/
 
https://www.survivethenews.com › pcr-covid-scam-del-bigtree-stew-peters-mike-adams-infowars-more
PCR & Covid Scam: Del Bigtree, Stew Peters, Mike Adams, Infowars & More
Jul 27, 2021Its All a HUGE SCAM! Biggest Human PsyOp Of All Time! BOMBSHELL Stew Peters & Del Bigtree Interview! Situation Update: CDC withdraws authorization of fraudulent PCR test that drove "casedemic" CDC Admits PCR Tests Failed, Abandons Using Them in Future - Infowars The Reality of the PCR Test: The PCR Scam: Covid-19 Never Ends Why […]
 
https://www.survivethenews.com › pcr-covid-scam-del-bigtree-stew-peters-mike-adams-infowars-more
PCR & Covid Scam: Del Bigtree, Stew Peters, Mike Adams, Infowars & More
Jul 27, 2021Its All a HUGE SCAM! Biggest Human PsyOp Of All Time! BOMBSHELL Stew Peters & Del Bigtree Interview! Situation Update: CDC withdraws authorization of fraudulent PCR test that drove "casedemic" CDC Admits PCR Tests Failed, Abandons Using Them in Future - Infowars The Reality of the PCR Test: The PCR Scam: Covid-19 Never Ends Why […]

again... all this is out the window... everyone who was calling scam on the PCR past has been duped --- there is no virus, right?

All this stuff seemingly legitimate, brutal, conspircy-busting science about the problems of increasing the CT value... and that generating more false positives... that's now completely out the window because there is no virus right?
 
why would I edit it out. I learned something.
There are a lot of whys here.

Why do you take every chance you get to dismiss as “wacky”, an argument that you clearly have zero understanding of? You don’t even know what a ‘virus” is purported to do. Or what constitutes it’s supposed nature. How can you speak on whether something exists if you don’t even know what it’s purported to be? And be so arrogant about it?
 
Last edited:
There are a lot of why‘s here.

Why do you take every chance you get to dismiss as “wacky”, an argument that you clearly have zero understanding of? You don’t even know what a ‘virus” is purported to do. Or what constitutes it’s supposed nature. How can you speak on whether something exists if you don’t even know what it’s purported to be? And be so arrogant about it?

Here's another good "why":
Why were Alex and Richard able to make further significant progress with this one conversation than Cowan and Kaufman have over years of browbeating?
 
I thought this was a good explaination... digs into the testing at about 8 min in.
but of course you wouldn't make any sense to people who think there's no virus:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/d7NLLMTDXfSA/

To the contrary, the PCR test and how it is used supports the position of people who know there is no virus.

It should be noted that there is no mention anywhere in the Corman-Drosten paper of a test being positive or negative, or indeed what defines a positive or negative result. These types of virological diagnostic tests must be based on a SOP, including a validated and fixed number of PCR cycles (Ct value) after which a sample is deemed positive or negative. The maximum reasonably reliable Ct value is 30 cycles. Above a Ct of 35 cycles, rapidly increasing numbers of false positives must be expected .

PCR data evaluated as positive after a Ct value of 35 cycles are completely unreliable.

Citing Jaafar et al. 2020 [3]: “At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive.” In other words, there was no successful virus isolation of SARS-CoV-2 at those high Ct values.

Further, scientific studies show that only non-infectious (dead) viruses are detected with Ct values of 35 [22].

Between 30 and 35 there is a grey area, where a positive test cannot be established with certainty. This area should be excluded. Of course, one could perform 45 PCR cycles, as recommended in the Corman-Drosten WHO-protocol (Figure 4), but then you also have to define a reasonable Ct-value (which should not exceed 30). But an analytical result with a Ct value of 45 is scientifically and diagnostically absolutely meaningless (a reasonable Ct-value should not exceed 30). All this should be communicated very clearly. It is a significant mistake that the Corman-Drosten paper does not mention the maximum Ct value at which a sample can be unambiguously considered as a positive or a negative test-result. This important cycle threshold limit is also not specified in any follow-up submissions to date.


The unconfirmed assumption described in the Corman-Drosten paper is that SARS-CoV-2 is the only virus from the SARS-like beta-coronavirus group that currently causes infections in humans. The sequences on which their PCR method is based are in silico sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China [23], because at the time of development of the PCR test no control material of infectious (“live”) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 was available to the authors. The PCR test was therefore designed using the sequence of the known SARS-CoV as a control material for the Sarbeco component (Dr. Meijer, co-author Corman-Drosten paper in an email exchange with Dr. Peter Borger) [2].

All individuals testing positive with the RT-PCR test, as described in the Corman-Drosten paper, are assumed to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 infections. There are three severe flaws in their assumption. First, a positive test for the RNA molecules described in the Corman-Drosten paper cannot be equated to “infection with a virus”. A positive RT-PCR test merely indicates the presence of viral RNA molecules. As demonstrated under point 1d (above), the Corman-Drosten test was not designed to detect the full-length virus, but only a fragment of the virus. We already concluded that this classifies the test as unsuitable as a diagnostic test
for SARS-virus infections.


Secondly and of major relevance, the functionality of the published RT-PCR Test was not demonstrated with the use of a positive control (isolated SARS-CoV-2 RNA) which is an essential scientific gold standard.

Source
 
Here’s a question I’d like to tee up for next time:
Why did Richard do a better job of representing Cowan and Kaufman’s position than Cowan and Kaufman?
And what might this tell us about their failed approaches and how they might improve them moving forward?

((acoustic guitar playing))
 
Here’s a question I’d like to tee up for next time:
Why did Richard do a better job of representing Cowan and Kaufman’s position than Cowan and Kaufman?
And what might this tell us about their failed approaches and how they might improve them moving forward?

((acoustic guitar playing))

How's that possible when Richard doesn't know much about PCR testing?
 
progress with who? You?
With potential future professionals who would otherwise be stuck with Cowans portrayal of the inquiry. Those people will have a much easier time taking this episodes conversation seriously than they would anything Cowan has done. You need to take step back and recognize this. Sincerely
 
How's that possible when Richard doesn't know much about PCR testing?
Well, unfortunate as it may be, here on Planet Earth you can have all the facts in the world, but if you’re unable to effectively connect with the people-in-need of those facts they won’t be received. And it’s not those peoples’ fault.
Richard made a crystal clear example of a humble presentation of the position. He may not have had even 10% of the facts, but he represented the position 100x better.
Go re-listen to the Tom Cowan episode. Tom sounds like he should be taking notes on Richard’s communications work.
 
Back
Top