Richard Cox, Being Right About No Virus |573|

[Alex]

PS: some interesting points here and there too though

Not really... I mean, you can find " interesting points" in Holocaust denial, Flat Earth science, " the great reset" and a bunch of other stuff. discernment... don't suffer fools gladly... hunger for the truth... only way to go.

Since you've dabbled in the " no virus no rabies" intellectual cesspool I would be super interested in your breakdown of Russ's video linked above. I'd like to hear how your processing it relative to the " interesting points" you mentioned.

I'm interested in the " why people believe weird things " angle. there are some genuinely smart people... much smarter than average people... on this forum who have succumbed to this foolishness.

If we think about this from a "culture shaper" perspective two things jump out.
1. people are relatively easy to manipulate with "scientific" data/ reasoning. this is especially true of otherwise smart people who are accomplished in non-scientific/non-technical endeavors... or worse yet accomplished in the soft Sciences. it's hard to be a elite history buff or an expert in psychology and take an intellectual beating because you don't understand the gain of function research.

2. people need to be led. I don't buy into this but I can understand how "culture shapers" could get into a headspace that uses point one as a justification for manipulation. "if I don't leave these fools by the nose someone's going to come along and scientifically Jonestown them."

 

[Michael Larkin]

I'm not sure if Michael is a member of Skeptiko any more, but I have his email address, so I could try and get him back to fill this picture out more if you like."

David

I am still a member. But how come you have my email address? As far as I'm aware, only two people on Skeptiko do -- David Bailey is one, and Nelson is the other. David Bailey, incidentally, tells me he was removed from Skeptiko when his password was changed, so he simply couldn't log on. I don't know if that's true, and if so, who or what might have changed it. If it wasn't Alex, then maybe he's unaware of it. Which is a pity, because David has always been one of the most loyal contributors to Skeptiko. We haven't always agreed (who has?), but I respect David nonetheless and maybe Alex can fix it.

As regards "coming back to fill out the picture for Alex", no point. Mind closed, understanding of biology seemingly almost completely lacking. I've asked myself why he's so adamant and so insulting. I can only hazard a guess that he sees anyone holding a different opinion on this matter as challenging some crucial aspect of his weltanshauung, perhaps particularly in relation to his conspiratorial outlook. Maybe he's subconsciously worried that if he so much as looks at the data, and admits even the tiniest scintilla of doubt, his whole world will come crashing down.

 

[Alex]

I am still a member. But how come you have my email address? As far as I'm aware, only two people on Skeptiko do -- David Bailey is one, and Nelson is the other. David Bailey, incidentally, tells me he was removed from Skeptiko when his password was changed, so he simply couldn't log on. I don't know if that's true, and if so, who or what might have changed it. If it wasn't Alex, then maybe he's unaware of it. Which is a pity, because David has always been one of the most loyal contributors to Skeptiko. We haven't always agreed (who has?), but I respect David nonetheless and maybe Alex can fix it.

As regards "coming back to fill out the picture for Alex", no point. Mind closed, understanding of biology seemingly almost completely lacking. I've asked myself why he's so adamant and so insulting. I can only hazard a guess that he sees anyone holding a different opinion on this matter as challenging some crucial aspect of his weltanshauung, perhaps particularly in relation to his conspiratorial outlook. Maybe he's subconsciously worried that if he so much as looks at the data, and admits even the tiniest scintilla of doubt, his whole world will come crashing down.

Ok Michael I guess this will be the end of the road then.

My last hope is that Richard Cox will manage to clear his head and come out of the " no rabies no virus" fog.

If he does he'd be the right guy to explain the " why otherwise intelligent people believe weird things" story.

 

[Nelson]

I am still a member. But how come you have my email address? As far as I'm aware, only two people on Skeptiko do -- David Bailey is one, and Nelson is the other.

I didn't give your email address out to anyone. I hope you stay on the forum. You and David have been wonderful and conscientious contributors over the years

 

[Nelson]

Not really... I mean, you can find " interesting points" in Holocaust denial, Flat Earth science, " the great reset" and a bunch of other stuff. discernment... don't suffer fools gladly... hunger for the truth... only way to go.

Since you've dabbled in the " no virus no rabies" intellectual cesspool I would be super interested in your breakdown of Russ's video linked above. I'd like to hear how your processing it relative to the " interesting points" you mentioned.

I'm interested in the " why people believe weird things " angle. there are some genuinely smart people... much smarter than average people... on this forum who have succumbed to this foolishness.

If we think about this from a "culture shaper" perspective two things jump out.
1. people are relatively easy to manipulate with "scientific" data/ reasoning. this is especially true of otherwise smart people who are accomplished in non-scientific/non-technical endeavors... or worse yet accomplished in the soft Sciences. it's hard to be a elite history buff or an expert in psychology and take an intellectual beating because you don't understand the gain of function research.

2. people need to be led. I don't buy into this but I can understand how "culture shapers" could get into a headspace that uses point one as a justification for manipulation. "if I don't leave these fools by the nose someone's going to come along and scientifically Jonestown them."

That was an interesting video by Russel Brand. I respect him a lot. I distrust Jon Stewart. His views, his family background (e.g. his brother), and that he's part of the establishment, make me suspicious.

If I remember correctly, I wrote elsewhere that I think it's highly unlikely the no virus position is correct.

Nevertheless I find some points interesting, such as how exactly DNA is extracted, and on a fundamental level regarding Idealism. If one doesn't believe in viruses, do they then have no effect on someone?
And what is true vs what serves someone?

For decades and up till just a month ago I was completely about following the data wherever it leads. But in the last months I've personally experienced synchronicities and psi type phenomena where it's left my "follow the data" worldview in tatters.

I'm now thinking there might be multiverses meshed together and that Idealism is mainly correct.

I still don't understand this apparent paradox about "follow the data" vs "science can't really measure anything".

 

[Alex]

That was an interesting video by Russel Brand. I respect him a lot.

Me too. That's why I posted the video.

I distrust Jon Stewart.

I was never a fan, but have to admire the position he took in this video re the virus being a bioweapon rather than this absurd idea that it was from a " wet Market." as he explains in the video this had serious consequences for his career... IE not going along with the story they were pitching at the time.

If I remember correctly, I wrote elsewhere that I think it's highly unlikely the no virus position is correct.

Nevertheless I find some points interesting, such as how exactly DNA is extracted,

I don't think that part of it is all that interesting. I think it's well understood.

I think the part that is interesting is that we have a very incomplete understanding of viruses and how they work inside the body. as I published seven years ago the HIV/AIDS thing a can't be brushed away and is a clear indication of how incomplete our knowledge is.

UN says African-American women 20 times more likely for ...
Skeptiko
https://skeptiko.com › 273-henry-bauer-science-wron...

There are some huge holes in our scientific understanding of HIV/AIDS. Alex Tsakiris of Skeptiko interviews Dr. Henry Bauer, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & ...
and on a fundamental level regarding Idealism. If one doesn't believe in viruses, do they then have no effect on someone?
And what is true vs what serves someone?

===

But I think we can have enough discernment to differentiate between this kind of incomplete knowledge... which admittedly is littered with misinformation/disinformation... and the "no rabies no virus" foolishness.

I mean, if one goes into the " no rabies no virus " back hole then there's no logical/scientific defense against Dean Radin's hive mind Jab which uses a virus as a delivery mechanism.

I'm now thinking there might be multiverses meshed together and that Idealism is mainly correct.

Hasn't this been the Dilemma of the Mystic throughout time? isn't it a in this world but not of this world kind of thing?

I still don't understand this apparent paradox about "follow the data" vs "science can't really measure anything".

Isn't that what you were just talking about??? "Multiverse mesh together with idealism mainly correct"

Now go fix the faucet in the kitchen... idealism doesn't help much... shut up and calculate does... follow the data does.

 

[Alex]

....

That was an interesting video by Russel Brand. I respect him a lot.

By the way, do you understand how/why the Russell Brand video is completely incompatible with the foolish " no virus no rabies" nonsense that you think is " probably " not true?

 

[Nelson]

....


By the way, do you understand how/why the Russell Brand video is completely incompatible with the foolish " no virus no rabies" nonsense that you think is " probably " not true?

Of course, because one can't engineer viruses if they don't exist. And you misquoted me. I said 'I think it's highly unlikely the no virus position is correct.'
I'm just being cautious of ruling things out about a topic I don't know much about.

But the question I have is why this subject seems to bother you so much. After all, one doesn't need to have an opinion on the nature of covid to have resisted lockdowns, the jabs etc. I protested on the streets and spent the rest of my time in Sweden which essentially had no Lockdown and stayed free.

But you seem aggravated by the nature of covid topic.

 

[Nelson]

As far as people believing weird things. I'd add to the list the belief in "dark matter", and the belief in a benevolent, universal creator god called Jehovah, who nevertheless according to the Old Testament is ethnocentric, genocidal, jealous and vengeful.

How can people say they are beliers in a benevolent creator god, even though in black and white there are commands to commit genocide and rape?

That to me is bizarre. No need for electron microscopes etc. It's a text that any literate person can read.

 

[Nelson]

The typical apologetics for the Bible are translation and interpretation issues. Therefore one shouldn't just take the words in the Bible for what they are.
That's similar I guess to the no virus people, saying one can't see viruses so they can't be real. Or the flat earthers saying one can't see the Earth is a ball therefore it can't be.

So the sense organs are called on as evidence for their worldview.

 

[Nelson]

Then they strawman the opposition. The bible believers have Satan. The no virus people have the medical establishment. The flat earthers have NASA.

Notice that in almost every conversation with a flat earther that the conversation quickly starts to revolve around NASA.

 

[Nelson]

Caveat though. From what I've read of (say) Michael Larkin's posts on the rabies issue, they seem to have been remarkably balanced-sounding and not using rhetorical techniques such as metaphors, hyperbole and strawmen.

In contrast, you've used such rhetorical techniques and even shut down the conversation in that one interview with the no virus doctor. That didn't come off well.

 

[Alex]

Of course, because one can't engineer viruses if they don't exist. And you misquoted me. I said 'I think it's highly unlikely the no virus position is correct.'
I'm just being cautious of ruling things out about a topic I don't know much about.

You did. sorry for misquoting.

But the question I have is why this subject seems to bother you so much. After all, one doesn't need to have an opinion on the nature of covid to have resisted lockdowns, the jabs etc. I protested on the streets and spent the rest of my time in Sweden which essentially had no Lockdown and stayed free.

But you seem aggravated by the nature of covid topic.

I'm aggravated by what the " no rabies no virus " thing has revealed... particularly what it revealed in this episode with Richard Cox.

I suspect that the "no virus no rabies" thing is op designed to confuse folks about covid and advance this idea that all science must come from the technocracy... " look at these nutters who think there's no such thing as a covid virus... that's why we should only listen to those we deem as experts."

I got to believe that the popularity of the Flat Earth stuff... and particularly "the spherically neutral" stuff was a driver in all this. you look at the " conspiracy community" and you seed/ nurture this idea that all science should be challenged with this Common Man Uber empiricism... now you've created an environment that is ripe for " no rabies no virus."

Follow the data... look for the deception... exercise discernment.

 

[Nelson]

I suspect that the "no virus no rabies" thing is op designed to confuse folks about covid and advance this idea that all science must come from the technocracy... " look at these nutters who think there's no such thing as a covid virus... that's why we should only listen to those we deem as experts."

You brought some powerful evidence about an op.
But an even more powerful op is that they've got alternative thinkers focusing on the how rather than "who benefits "?
After all, does it matter so much how 911 was done, rather than the fact that the official story was clearly bogus and cui bono?

But instead, they got alternative thinkers to squabble about whether the towers were brought down using models, or whether holograms were involved, a beam weapon, etc. All of which sound absolutely absurd to most people.

 

[Nelson]

Likewise with covid. What covid is (if it's real or not, how it was created etc.) isn't so important. What's most important is that the official story is clearly a scam and who benefits?

 

[Alex]

Likewise with covid. What covid is (if it's real or not, how it was created etc.) isn't so important. What's most important is that the official story is clearly a scam and who benefits?

I kind of get your point... and agree regarding " who benefits, but does the analogy really hold up? the " no virus no rabies" folks are saying that covid did not happen... it was a "mind virus" ( if my memory is correct this is an exact quote from David Icke). the obvious parallel would be to say that 9/11 didn't happen... it was a mass hallucination.

I don't understand why you're continuing to prop up this outrageous silliness... but then again, that's what makes this so interesting. You Are Not Alone. others have done the same. even RFK Jr couldn't completely get away from the Andrew Kaufman silliness.

I'm actually glad that it keeps coming up because I think it's an important issue that hasn't been fully explored. it's an updated version of " why people believe weird things ."

and in this instance the social Engineers have made their goal very clear; they want all science information to come from the technocracy. " no virus no rabies" is a perfect compliment to this goal. they can point to it and say " clearly we need to protect people from themselves otherwise they'll come to all sorts of ridiculous conclusions regarding science. "

 

[Nelson]

the obvious parallel would be to say that 9/11 didn't happen... it was a mass hallucination.

Excellent point

I don't understand why you're continuing to prop up this outrageous silliness...

I'm not really propping it up. I've said I think the no virus position is highly unlikely to be correct. And I've been saying that the question itself is a trap. Better from a public relations perspective to mainly focus on the "who benefits" angle, so that the masses become more sceptical of the current ruling class and their agendas.

But instead so many alternatives thinkers have fallen into the trap of arguing with each other about what covid is/isn't. We could add to that list the "viruses from space " people, such as at Brothers of the Serpent podcast, who entertain the idea of covid coming from outer space.

It's an interesting question in some ways. But when one's dealing with an existential threat from the current ruling class, to start arguing about the nature of covid is a trap imo.

But it is a conundrum:
Does one approach the trap of arguing about the existence of covid and risk getting embroiled in infighting amongst alternative thinkers, but possibly to deweaponise the trap...
Or does one ignore the trap and just focus on the string-pulling current ruling class, but then risk the trap staying there, festering and getting more popular, to end up having it as a weapon to turn off the masses, as the flat earther movement came to be...

My own thinking is to address the trap, identifying it etc. but as empathetically as possible. Being respectful to genuine people who've fallen into the trap. Calling them fools is counterproductive imo. It tends to make the infighting amongst alternative thinkers more bitter, and that's what the current ruling class wants.

 

[Alex]

I'm not really propping it up. I've said I think the no virus position is highly unlikely to be correct.

I was thinking more about this and your " highly unlikely... cautious about ruling things out" position.

I'm going to have to do a little skeptiko poking

First, I don't think the " no virus no rabies " proposition raises to the level of " highly unlikely. " I think it's at a level somewhere above Flat Earth and Holocaust denial, but not by much. characterizing it as " highly unlikely" suggest that there may be some scientific / logical reality to it.

Secondly, being " cautious about ruling things out" doesn't really get us anywhere either. take 9/11. "hey, maybe that couch fire in building 7 really did bring down a 47 story steel frame building... I mean, I'm not an structural engineer... I'm not an architect... how do I know."

I think there's a direct parallel with the " no rabies no virus" thing. especially when you really dive into the silliness of some of the posts on this thread.

My own thinking is to address the trap, identifying it etc. but as empathetically as possible. Being respectful to genuine people who've fallen into the trap. Calling them fools is counterproductive imo. It tends to make the infighting amongst alternative thinkers more bitter, and that's what the current ruling class wants.

Maybe... but this always sounds like focusing on form versus Style. " no rabies no virus" is a scientifically foolish proposition. if you feel a need to add some other language to it in order to soften the blow for those who have fallen into this " trap" that's fine.

 

[Nelson]

being " cautious about ruling things out" doesn't really get us anywhere either. take 9/11. "hey, maybe that couch fire in building 7 really did bring down a 47 story steel frame building... I mean, I'm not an structural engineer... I'm not an architect... how do I know."

If we were to use the 911 analogy further, we'd have a cartel of monopolistic structural engineers who were creating many buildings worldwide that were seemingly falling down of their own accord. The structural engineers would have been caught lying about the spontaneous collapses. And the objects that hit the twin towers would have had far fewer witnesses, and the only visual evidence available of the impacts would be some grainy photos.

I don't think the people who doubt viruses are foolish. They've understandably become suspicious of the medical establishment which has demonstrably been untrustworthy. Then they look at the info they can check with their own eyes and try to puzzle things together on a more abstract level. But they're not convinced that there are viruses, and loose ends in their logic are filled in by fixating on the fact that the medical establishment is untrustworthy.

I see much of the fixation on the untrustworthiness of the medical establishment (or NASA in the case of flat earthers) as an emotional, instinctual response. Danger aversion. So it makes sense from an evolutionary psychology perspective.

 

[Nelson]

Maybe... but this always sounds like focusing on form versus Style. " no rabies no virus" is a scientifically foolish proposition. if you feel a need to add some other language to it in order to soften the blow for those who have fallen into this " trap" that's fine.

Well whatever one terms it, there's a big difference between saying you think someone is mistaken vs calling them a fool.

And about "not suffering fools gladly", it seems you've fallen into the trap of false opposites. The epistles are a psyop; therefore I'll say the opposite of the quote and it'll be a helpful message.