Scott Adams is the creator of the famous cartoon strip, Dilbert. It is a strip whose brilliance derives from close observation and understanding of human behaviour. Some time ago, Scott turned those skills to commenting insightfully and with notable intellectual humility on the politics and culture of our country.
Like many other commentators, and based on his own analysis of evidence available to him, he opted to take the Covid vaccine.
Recently, however, he posted a video on the topic that has been circulating on social media. It was a mea culpa in which he declared, “The unvaccinated were the winners,” and, to his great credit, “I want to find out how so many of [my viewers] got the right answer about the vaccine and I didn’t.”
“Winners” was perhaps a little tongue-in-cheek: he seemingly means that the unvaccinated do not have to worry about the long-term consequences of having the vaccine in their bodies since enough data concerning the lack of safety of the vaccines have now appeared to demonstrate that, on the balance of risks, the choice not to be vaccinated has been vindicated for individuals without comorbidities.
What follows is a personal response to Scott, which explains how consideration of the information that was available at the time led one person – me – to decline the ‘vaccine’. It is not meant to imply that all who accepted the vaccine made the wrong decision or, indeed, that everyone who declined it did so for good reasons.
Some people have said that the vaccine was created in a hurry. That may or may not be true. Much of the research for mRNA vaccines had already been done over many years, and coronaviruses as a class are well understood so it was at least feasible that only a small fraction of the vaccine development had been hurried.
The much more important point was that the vaccine was rolled out without long-term testing. Therefore one of two conditions applied. Either no claim could be made with confidence about the long-term safety of the vaccine or there was some amazing scientific argument for a once-in-a-lifetime theoretical certainty concerning the long-term safety of this vaccine. The latter would be so extraordinary that it might (for all I know) even be a first in the history of medicine. If that were the case, it would have been all that was being talked about by the scientists; it was not. Therefore, the more obvious, first state of affairs, obtained: nothing could be claimed with confidence about the long-term safety of the vaccine.
Given, then, that the long-term safety of the vaccine was a theoretical crapshoot, the unquantifiable long-term risk of taking it could only be justified by an extremely high certain risk of not taking it. Accordingly, a moral and scientific argument could only be made for its use by those at high risk of severe illness if exposed to Covid. Even the very earliest data immediately showed that I (and the overwhelming majority of the population) was not in the group.
The continued insistence on rolling out the vaccine to the entire population when the data revealed that those with no comorbidities were at low risk of severe illness or death from Covid was therefore immoral and unscientific on its face. The argument that reduced transmission from the non-vulnerable to the vulnerable as a result of mass vaccination could only stand if the long-term safety of the vaccine had been established, which it had not. Given the lack of proof of long-term safety, the mass-vaccination policy was clearly putting at risk young or healthy lives to save old and unhealthy ones. The policy makers did not even acknowledge this, express any concern about the grave responsibility they were taking on for knowingly putting people at risk, or indicate how they had weighed the risks before reaching their policy positions. Altogether, this was a very strong reason not to trust the policy or the people setting it.
At the very least, if the gamble with people’s health and lives represented by the coercive vaccination policy had been taken following an adequate cost-benefit benefit, that decision would have been a tough judgement call. Any honest presentation of it would have involved the equivocal language of risk-balancing and the public availability of information about how the risks were weighed and the decision was made. In fact, the language of policy-makers was dishonestly unequivocal and the advice they offered suggested no risk whatsoever of taking the vaccine. This advice was simply false (or if you prefer, misleading) on the evidence of the time inasmuch as it was unqualified.
Data that did not support Covid policies were actively and massively suppressed. This raised the bar of sufficient evidence for certainty that the vaccine was safe and efficacious. Per the foregoing, the bar was not met.
Simple analyses of even the early available data showed that the establishment was prepared to do much more harm in terms of human rights and spending public resources to prevent a Covid death than any other kind of death. Why this disproportionality? An explanation of this overreaction was required. The kindest guess as to what was driving it was ‘good-old, honest panic’. But if a policy is being driven by panic, then the bar for going along with it moves up even higher. A less kind guess is that there were undeclared reasons for the policy, in which case, obviously, the vaccine could not be trusted.
Fear had clearly generated a health panic and a moral panic, or mass formation psychosis. That brought into play many very strong cognitive biases and natural human tendencies against rationality and proportionality. Evidence of those biases was everywhere; it included the severing of close kin and kith relationships, the ill-treatment of people by others who used to be perfectly decent, the willingness of parents to cause developmental harm to their children, calls for large-scale rights violations that were made by large numbers of citizens of previously free countries without any apparent concern for the horrific implications of those calls, and the straight-faced, even anxious compliance with policies that should have warranted responses of laughter from psychologically healthy individuals (even if they had been necessary or just helpful). In the grip of such panic or mass formation psychosis the evidential bar for extreme claims (such as the safety and moral necessity of injecting oneself with a form of gene therapy that has not undergone long-term testing) rises yet further.
The companies responsible for manufacturing and ultimately profiting from the vaccination were given legal immunity. Why would a government do that if it really believed that the vaccine was safe and wanted to instil confidence in it? And why would I put something in my body that the Government has decided can harm me without my having any legal redress?
If the vaccine-sceptical were wrong, there would still have been two good reasons not to suppress their data or views. First, we are a liberal democracy that values free speech as a fundamental right and second, their data and arguments could be shown to be fallacious. The fact that the powers-that-be decided to violate our fundamental values and suppress discussion invites the question of ‘Why?’ That was not satisfactorily answered beyond, “It’s easier for them to impose their mandates in a world where people do not dissent.” But that is an argument against compliance, rather than for it. Suppressing information a priori suggests that the information has persuasive force. I distrust anyone who distrusts me to determine which information and arguments are good and which are bad when it is my health that is at stake – especially when the people who are promoting censorship are hypocritically acting against their declared beliefs in informed consent and bodily autonomy.
As time went on, it became very clear that some of the informational claims that had been made to convince people to get ‘vaccinated’, especially by politicians and media commentators, were false. If those policies had been genuinely justified by the previously claimed ‘facts’, then determination of the falsity of those ‘facts’ should have resulted in a change in policy or, at the very least, expressions of clarification and regret by people who had previously made those incorrect but pivotal claims. Basic moral and scientific standards demand that individuals put clearly on the record the requisite corrections and retractions of statements that might influence decisions that affect health. If they don’t, they should not be trusted – especially given the huge potential consequences of their informational errors for an increasingly ‘vaccinated’ population. That, however, never happened. If the vaccine-pushers had acted in good faith, then in the wake of the publication of new data throughout the pandemic, we would have been hearing (and perhaps even accepting) multiple mea culpas. We heard no such thing from political officials, revealing an almost across-the-board lack of integrity, moral seriousness, or concern with accuracy. The consequently necessary discounting of the claims previously made by officials left no trustworthy case on the pro-lockdown, pro-vaccine side at all.
To offer some examples of statements that were proven false by data but not explicitly walked back:
- “You’re not going to get Covid if you get these vaccinations… We are in a pandemic of the unvaccinated.” – Joe Biden;
- “The vaccines are safe. I promise you.” – Joe Biden;
- “The vaccines are safe and effective.” – Anthony Fauci.
- “Our data from the CDC suggest that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, do not get sick – and it’s not just in the clinical trials but it’s also in real world data.” – Dr. Rochelle Walensky.
- “We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in… in serious condition and many on ventilators.” – Justice Sotomayer (during a case to determine legality of federal vaccine mandates).
… and so on and so on.
The last one is particularly interesting because it was made by a judge in a Supreme Court case to determine the legality of the federal mandates. Subsequently, the aforementioned Dr. Walensky, head of the CDC, who had previously made a false statement about the efficacy of the vaccine, confirmed under questioning that the number of children in hospital was only 3,500 – not 100,000.
To make more strongly the point about prior claims and policies being contradicted by subsequent findings but not, as a result, being reversed, the same Dr. Walensky, head of the CDC, said, “the overwhelming number of deaths – over 75% – occurred in people that had at least four comorbidities. So really these were people who were unwell to begin with”. That statement so completely undermined the entire justification for the policies of mass-vaccination and lockdowns that any intellectually honest person who supported them would at that point have to reassess their position. Whereas the average Joe might well have missed that piece of information from the CDC, it was the Government’s own information so the presidential Joe (and his agents) certainly could not have missed it. Where was the sea change in policy to match the sea change in our understanding of the risks associated with Covid, and therefore the cost-benefit balance of the untested (long-term) vaccine vs. the risk associated with being infected with Covid? It never came. Clearly, neither the policy positions nor their supposed factual basis could be trusted.
Whatever the risks associated with a Covid infection on the one hand, and the ‘vaccine’ on the other, the vaccination policy enabled massive human rights violations. Those who were ‘vaccinated’ were happy to see the ‘unvaccinated’ have basic freedoms removed (the freedom to speak freely, work, travel, be with loved ones at important moments such as births, deaths, funerals etc.) because their status as ‘vaccinated’ allowed them to accept back as privileges-for-the-vaccinated the rights that had been removed from everyone else. Indeed, many people grudgingly admitted that they got vaccinated for that very reason, e.g. to keep their job or go out with their friends. For me, that would have been to be complicit in the destruction, by precedent and participation, of the most basic rights on which our peaceful society depends.
People have died to secure those rights for me and my compatriots. As a teenager, my Austrian grandfather fled to England from Vienna and promptly joined Churchill’s army to defeat Hitler. Hitler was the man who murdered his father, my great-grandfather, in Dachau for being a Jew. The camps began as a way to quarantine the Jews who were regarded as vectors of disease that had to have their rights removed for the protection of the wider population. In 2022, all I had to do in defence of such rights was to put up with limited travel and being barred from my favourite restaurants, etc., for a few months.
Even if I were some weird statistical outlier such that Covid might hospitalise me despite my age and good health, then so be it: if it were going to take me, I would not let it take my principles and rights in the meanwhile.
And what if I were wrong? What if the massive abrogation of rights that was the response of governments around the world to a pandemic with a tiny fatality rate among those who were not “unwell to begin with” (to use the expression of the Director of the CDC) was not going to end in a few months?
What if it were going to go on forever? In that case, the risk to my life from Covid would be nothing next to the risk to all of our lives as we take to the streets in the last, desperate hope of wresting back the most basic freedoms of all from a State that has long forgotten that it legitimately exists only to protect them and, instead, sees them now as inconvenient obstacles to be worked around or even destroyed.
This is an edited excerpt from a longer article first published by the Brownstone Institute.
Robin Koerner is a British-born citizen of the USA, who currently serves as Academic Dean of the John Locke Institute. He holds graduate degrees in both Physics and the Philosophy of Science from the University of Cambridge.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
In all a good article, let down a little by the comment at the end that all we had to put up with was some minor inconveniences. Read Marian Turski’s Auschwitz speech – where he points out that the othering of the Jews in the early ’30s in Germany started out with such minor inconveniences too. The tide did not turn because people woke up and realised we were on the wrong path – indeed, anyone who suggested parallels to 1930s Germany was given extremely short shrift. No, the tide turned because that garbage vax failed and failed miserably – only after its failure could no longer be hidden did things start to change, although they still tried to hide its toxicity for a long time and kept pushing people to get it, even though it had proven to be useless garbage.
How would things have been if the garbage vaxx had actually produced some actual result, for example halting infection and transmission? Let us say it could have halted transmission for a few years, not permanently – we would not know that for several years and in the meantime they would have continued injecting people, still not knowing anything about long-term side effects and sweeping aside any short-term side effects as completely worthwhile because it “worked”. The abuses would only have continued and increased, Austria already had legislation to incarcerate people for not getting vaxxed.
As for the mrna technology not being rushed – questionable claim, as the whole reason it was never used before was because it was known to be toxic and cause massive serious side effects. It was also considered to be too toxic to use for longer-term treatment (i.e. repeated jabs). That knowledge is the reason why it was forced onto the entire population, nothing whatsoever to do with saving the elderly. In October/November 2019 Pfauci was begging for a serious virus to sweep across the world so that he could have the excuse he wanted to stick the mrna toxin into people.
“”the tide turned because that garbage vax failed and failed miserably” – that is such an important point. If this is the only reason, it is nowhere near good enough. As stated later, we would be in a terrible mess even if the vaccines ‘half-worked’. The issue is the mandates, the coercion, the lies by pharma and govt. etc. Not the fact they don’t work (or worse). The issue is bigger than whether this or that medical product works or not. It is to get back personal autonomy, freedom of choice and movement. To get back independent trustworthy authorities. And for the wrongdoers to be identified and punished.
These articles make me laugh. Not a mystery why the unstabbed saw through the medical nazism.
-Fake scamdemic with a close to zero death rate
-20 year history of similar fake scams
-Criminal Industry with 200 years of killing people with poisons
-Many of us are fit, healthy and have never taken drugs
-Fake news + faker science + Criminal politicians all screaming about nothing
-Autism, cancers etc. from the ‘safe vaccines’ (that everyone loves and will die on a hill in Keev to defend, I am not an anti-vaxxer but….)
-Many of us unstabbinated were ill in Nov/Dec with sthg that was not a normal flu
The smell of bullshit was so strong and obvious by Dec 2019 (when the groanings and threats started) and the virus had been present in the pop probably by the summer 2019, that the entire fascist fiasco was rejected including poisoned quacksines.
It is called critical thinking, common sense and confidence in yourself. Plus not watching fake news, faker science, or listening to half wits like most Doctors, ‘experts’, politicians or other pundits and retards.
Yes, I had “a nasty little virus” in mid Nov 2019. With hindsight, I decided quite early-on that it was probably Covid. When the jabs were announced and I found out that Big Pharma had been indemnified against prosecution, I checked the Government’s compensation scheme and it was obvious that it was pathetically inadequate and also going to be extremely difficult to claim.
As a single female, early 60s, living alone, apart from any other issues which affected my decision, that was enough to convince me it wasn’t a good idea to participate in a medical experiment with NO safety data.
Who would (a) help me lodge a claim for compensation if it was needed and I was incapable through vaccine damage and (b) who would look after me when the paltry £120,000 had gone ….. which it would have very quickly.
I am astounded that so many people didn’t do “due diligence.”
the tide turned because that garbage vax failed and failed miserably
Indeed, as I’ve often pointed out on here, had the stab worked we’d be in deep shit now.
And the mrna technology was indeed rushed, very very rushed. It was at least a decade away from being ready to put into humans, and as we now know with the serious problems with this and the lipid nano thingies almost certainly far longer than that – if ever.
Oh, and it was clear from March 2020 that the government and health authorities were lying through their teeth about all things covid. Anyone who hadn’t grasped that by December 2020 when the stabs started was, frankly, dumb.
But I guess most people are happier following the crowd than actually thinking for themselves. Trouble is, that can come at a price.
The example he gave was on ‘inconveniences’ imposed in the early 1930s, several years before the full horrors started to get going. We have had just 3 years, and there has been no official mea culpa from the authorities especially the WHO. In fact quite the opposite. Pfizer are trying to cover up that they are deliberately manipulating viruses and the WEF and WHO crowd are warning of worse to come and insisting we need to double down on all the marvellous global collectivism that brought such wonderful humane results over the last 3 years. We now have multiple demons to deal with that all appear to have only just got into their stride –
[1] Climate Change (formerly known as Global Warming) also now known as the Climate Crisis or Code Red for Humanity. A child, film stars (including Jane Fonda), pop stars and politicians all seemed to be revered prophets whenever they say how terrible we all are for living.
[2] Pandemics (already discussed)
[3] Racism as described by the Marxist outfit – BLM, and Jane Fonda (please see Booker T, Washington)
[4] Iniquity as described by anyone (and Jane Fonda) making a name for themselves in 1, 2 and 3 above
[5] Overpopulation – the most dangerous assertion of them all, that if allowed to take hold within the general populations imagination, really will open the gates of hell, and much much wider than they were in the 1940s.
And right on que…
WHO extends Covid health emergency warning, says “misinformation” needs to be tackled.
The WHO’s IHR is a binding treaty that requires members to adhere to WHO recommendations. The international public health organization declares a PHEIC when a disease meets three criteria; it is sudden, unexpected, serious, or unusual; it can spread across international borders; and it might require an international response.
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said his “message is clear: Do not underestimate this virus. It has and will continue to surprise us, and it will continue to kill unless we do more to get health tools to people that need them and to comprehensively tackle misinformation.”
Committee members stated that “vaccine hesitancy and the continuing spread of misinformation continue to be extra hurdles to the implementation of crucial public health interventions.”
“PHEIC” by the way is pronounced “FAKE”.
The most dangerous thing about the overpopulation assertion is that it is actually true to one degree or another. It cannot be so easily dismissed out of hand. But it can and will be weaponized by the Davos Gang all the same for their Machiavellian machinations.
How? Your assertion presupposes an objective definition of overpopulation. Different ideologies will claim different numbers – or perhaps will always claim that we are too many.
It is an interesting conundrum.
Are there enough resources if/when the global population were to live with the same affluence as we do in the West?
Yes
It is not true. There is a growing human population and we are/were solving many problems faster than the population growth. There is a stupid assertion that we are getting through 1.5 earths a year. Come on, how can anyone believe this nonsense, unless they watch too many films and cannot differentiate fantasy from fact? Learning, adapting, inventing, creating are all incredible attributes of humanity and yet we are encouraged by a range of ideologues to stop. This we cannot do without terrible consequences. Listen to the likes of Paul Ehrlich, Naomi Klein, the Club of Rome and the UN. And how about these?
” Finally, we might decide that civilisation itself is worth preserving. In that case we have to work out what to save and which people would be needed in a drastically reduced population – weighing the value of scientists and musicians against that of politicians, for example.” Susan Blakemore [UK Guardian science journalist]
“Good terrorists would be taking [Ebola Roaston and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people” Eric Pianka [Professor at University of Texas]
“The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world” John Shuttleworth [Founder of Mother Earth News magazine]
Indeed, the fact that the jabs turned out to be utter garbage was NOT the worst possible ending to this story. In fact, if they had turned out to be even marginally safe and effective, like Cuba’s own homegrown non-transfecting vaccines supposedly are, that would have actually emboldened the totalitarians to keep on totalitarianing even further, as there would have been almost no meaningful resistance. And we would have slid even further down the slippery slope, or rather into the abyss.
I’m sorry but actually he didn’t say that. He said that the State has forgotten that it only exists to protect lives but instead now sees them as an inconvenience to be worked around etc
They lied about the clinical trials.
They lied about it preventing infection
They lied about it preventing serious illness
They lied about it preventing onward transmission
They lied about it being safe
They lied about it being monitored..
What have they NOT lied to us about? The list would be extremely short, it seems.
Yes I imagine there are an awful lot of people now experiencing ”buyer’s remorse” so they’ll just have to keep their fingers crossed they got the degraded stuff, not the gunk from the ”hot lots” associated with adverse event reports and death. However, the more jabs you got the higher the risk you run of adverse effects, obviously, but touch wood eh..?
There’s rumblings in Substack Land that Geert Vanden Bossche’s forecast is coming true and this chap does a great job of explaining why in the 4th part of his series looking at excess deaths in Germany;
”The overall CFR (case fatality rate) of COVID-19 in Germany increased from ~0.15% during the first half of 2022 to over 0.8% in late January 2023.
Mass deceptive immune imprinting with leaky vaccines allows new SARS-CoV-2 variants to gain predominance. This is confirmed by the correlation between the proportion of bivalently boosted individuals and the proportion of sequenced SARS-CoV-2 samples that were positive for the lineage BQ.1.1* (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.60).
The recent increase in Germany’s COVID-19 CFR is owed to this lineage (BQ.1.1) which is fully adapted to escape the immunity provided by bivalent boosters.
The German COVID-19 hospitalization rate has been rising all throughout 2022 to reach a level of 7% in the last calendar week. With such a high hospitalization rate I expect a lot of asymptomatic cases to have gone undiagnosed.
Since bivalent boosters are advertised for protection from symptomatic disease, I propose that those variants well-adapted to the immunity provided by bivalent boosters can rapidly induce sudden death in bivalently boosted individuals, after a short asymptomatic disease course with a tendency to go undiagnosed.”
https://vigilance.pervaers.com/p/german-excess-mortality-part-4
https://newspunch.com/german-govt-bombshell-alarming-number-of-vaccinated-are-developing-aids/
Everyone has VAIDS! VAIDS VAIDS VAIDS!
And ADEs while we’re at it.
And IgG4 tolerance too, for those with three or more doses. With a gazillion reinfections and prolonged infections as a result.
And herd-level antigenic fixation (OAS writ very, very large) too, perhaps with a side of a (hopefully weak!) Marek Effect thrown in for good measure as well, as Geert predicted.
For me the date was 23 March 2020. The day the “enabling bill” (aka Coronovirus Act was passed in UK. A few days after Professor (aka soothsayer) Neil Ferguson released his apocalyptic forecasts for deaths from a novel coronavirus.
The date was exactly 87 years to the day after Hitler’s enabling act. The Professor was exactly the same one who had predicted death and destruction from foot and mouth disease.
Something clicked in my brain and all else seemed to follow as a plan.
But welcome to the fold, Robin, and keep writing good articles.
Neil Ferguson et al’s infamous Imperial College Report 9 recommended ‘suppression of the virus’ “until a vaccine becomes available”.
Who knew then Ferguson was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, arguably the world’s biggest vaccine promoter?
This conflict of interest wasn’t disclosed in Report 9…
BINGO.
The big difference between the 1933 Enabling Act and the 2020 Enabling Act is that the latter is still in force whereas the former was abolished by force.
Very true
So true. Professor Pantsdown really has a LOT to answer for!
And I can guarantee he won’t be made to answer or suffer in any way at all for his ‘projection’
In my opinion, no-one has given authentic voluntary informed consent to the worse than useless experimental Covid-19 jabs.
No-one.
People have been fed a tissue of lies about this grossly disproportionate and ill-targeted ‘Covid-19 response’ from the beginning.
It’s been a manufactured crisis from the get go.
They’ve tried this before, beating up these scares, e.g. Swine flu/H1N1 in 2009, the Ebola scare in 2014, and Zika in 2015-2016.
Those previous scares fizzled away…but they went for it this time, batshit over-the-top crazy…and here we are.
How did this happen? How did we end up with the INSANE plan to jab and test the entire world population, against a disease it was known from the beginning wasn’t a serious threat to most people?
WHO was responsible for this?
Let’s look at Bill Gates for example, at his GatesNotes, published on 30 April 2020: What you need to know about the COVID-19 vaccine, in which he said:
Gates was running the show, he was leading the race for a ‘coronavirus vaccine’. Yes, really.
Why was a software billionaire leading this ‘public health’ response? Why has he been dominating international vaccination policy for years, via the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the WHO, Gavi, CEPI etc?
Time to track this back now, time for accountability.
Invested in EcoHealth Alliance to do coronavirus experiments in Wuhan
Invested in BioNTech 2019 just before the “lab escape”
Cha-ching!
there is less of a requirement to be given informed consent for a drugs trial which is what this was.
I’m not sure I understand you correctly, you think there is less of a requirement to be given informed consent for a drugs trial?!
It’s one thing going to a doctor for a personal health issue, and giving informed consent for a medical intervention, it’s another thing entirely to be bullied into submitting to an experimental injection, against a disease which isn’t a serious threat to most people!
It’s diabolical that this has happened, and that people have even been mandated to have the worse than useless jabs!
This is the biggest scandal of all time, impacting on billions of people.
Is anyone else following Katherine Watt ? I’m unsure how seriously to take it … but it makes sense as pandemic history has unfurled. Was posted on Telegram by Oracle.
Pfizer: ‘we weren’t required to make a safe and effective product’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tjhIOBF_Kw
“When Jacinda Ardern wrote on her Facebook page that people could comment on adverse effects, expecting a few replies about mild discomfort, 33,000 comments were posted within a matter of hours. Ardern’s staff famously stayed up all night to delete them.”
Whay else does one have to know to accept that one was conned?
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/health-chiefs-admit-vaccine-link-to-heart-and-kidney-damage-and-the-msm-say-nothing/
I was fortunate about a decade ago to work with a team who had developed the first ever monoclonal antibody several years previously. It took at least a decade. A novel Biological therapeutic. By the time they had launched the product there were hundreds of publications, and a safety database with years of safety data from thousands of patients. And marketing authorisation from the FDA, and EMA, although in spite of the EU authorisation, the UK Care Quality Commission wouldn’t allow it to be used, deeming it to be too expensive. So when I saw the novel therapeutic injectables, which had a biological mode of action, and an Emergency Use Authorisation, a development time of only weeks and no long term safety data, it didn’t seem right. And I posted that many times on various social media forums (and was trolled I am certain by the 77th brigade or similar). They are not vaccines.
Indeed they are not, by the older definition. It seemed to me that calling it so, along with Emergency Use Authorization, allowed them to circumvent the type of work that you describe, and cash in as soon as possible (assisted by the granting of financial immunity as well).
Perhaps the Enabling Act is still in power precisely in order to maintain the Emergency Use Authorisation which enables the vaccine to be re-launched every few months (with “upgrades”), like a subscription service that you cannot opt out of once set up, or an operating system that you are forced to upgrade every year. Neat business model their, Bill!
Scott Adam’s follow up episode was way more interesting.
He pointed out that the higher the level of formal education, the higher the percentage of jabbed.
And he posed the question: why do the most educated keep getting all the wrong answers?
I know my response.
The formally educated distinguish themselves the most from the less formally educated not by being more intelligent but by being more obedient or compliant.
Contrary to what many people would like to think, our education system from preschool all the way to post-graduate doesn’t teach you to think for yourself but the opposite, it teaches what to think and to identify who is in charge telling you what to think.
It was the midwits who were the least “vaccine hesitant”. The preprint version of a 2021 study reported that it was PhDs that were most likely to be “hesitant”, followed by those without a university education; see here: https://unherd.com/thepost/the-most-vaccine-hesitant-education-group-of-all-phds/ and here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v1.full.pdf.
“The association between hesitancy and education level followed a U-shaped curve with the lowest hesitancy among those with a master’s degree (RR=0.75 [95% CI 0.72-0.78] and the highest hesitancy among those with a PhD (RR=2.16 [95%CI 2.05-2.28]) or ≤high school education(RR=1.88 [95%CI 1.83-1.93]) versus a bachelor’s degree”
The PhDs were also the least likely to change their mind as the months passed.
In the published version of the paper, the discussion of PhDs was censored, although a watered down version of the above reference to a “U shaped curve” was left in. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0260731
So Adams’ perception of the vax uptake by educational level is also wrong.
Indeed, I remember that well when it came out. It was a year and a half ago and wonder if it’s changed. Probably not.
In any case, I think it supports the general thesis. Most people advance through the educational ladder not out of intellectual curiosity but in pursuit of a diploma that will give them greater status and better career prospects.
Bryan Caplan explains it very well in his book The Case Against Education.
The exception are PhDs who are a small minority of those who go into further education. They probably do have more intellectual curiosity as PhD work tends to be highly specialised and hard to stick to unless you are genuinely interested in the material.
The bottom line, the likelihood that you accepted to be jabbed is determined by how compliant you are and what best predicts that is not your IQ but how “educated” you are.
Even PhD programs are declining in quality. That is, from my experience anyway, you are “encouraged” to frame your doctoral project within the prevailing fashionable narrative framework. Ie grievance politics.
Failure to do so results in rejection of thesis proposals as well as lack of funding in grants and fellowship applications. And this was in the early 2000’s.
Still I’m sure some clever candidates managed to get through by pretending to drink the koolade.
Indeed. It was the midwits.
yes and the same goes for moving up through the ranks of the civil service. Any kick-back against woke and you would be out on your ears.
How the Unvaccinated Got It Right. The answer’s simple. The jabs always seemed a hugh risk for a not very dangerous disease.
They were censoring the truth so we ignored their lies.
………
First Friday Freedom Drinks For all freedom lovers everywhere to meet.
Friday 3rd February 7pm
The Foundry Bell
London Rd,
Wokingham RG40 1RD
Directions from M4 – A329(M) – A329
Directions from M3 – A322 – A329
***
Stand in the Park Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near Everyman Cinema & play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE
Notwithstanding all the issues to do with safety, long term trials, redefining vaccines and bodily autonomy etc, there is a more fundamental issue for me, and it was the first one on my list when I emailed my GP to say, “No thanks”. Namely, that the vaccines were deployed in much the same context as an old fashioned gangster protection racket: “Buy into this little health insurance and we’ll see to it that you aren’t locked down again, won’t have your freedoms and liberties removed, can go back to the life you once had”.
No, no, no, no! Before I even get to the safety issues, I’m not going to succumb to that kind of bullying, particularly as all the NPIs were completely irrational, more damaging than the harms they were claiming to mitigate, and were lifted without any proper analysis (ethical as well as practical) of their virtues from a totalitarian regime (China). For me I didn’t get past first base on this principle alone, although I’ve followed keenly all the arguments and data about the mRNA vaccines’ safety and effectiveness since their rollout.
Indeed, quite the little protection racket.
Some investigative journalism should be done into the degree in which all the ridiculous NPIs were in fact only ever imposed to make people willing to accept any conditions just to open up again.
There are pre-corona pandemic preparedness plans for respiratory flu-like pandemics that make it clear that all the measures that were taken – quarantining completely healthy people, shutting down schools, shutting down businesses, masking, closing the borders – in the end do little to stop a pandemic and have huge societal and economic costs that far outweigh any theoretical benefit. This was well known long before corona hit, now we know of the involvement of behavioural psychologists rather than infectious disease experts in determining government responses, one must assume that all the NPIs were always and only intended to drive people to the point that they would be willing to give up hard-won fundamental rights just to be “allowed” to live a normal life again – and zero to do with saving lives.
The absolute tw*t that was the NL health minister went around bleating that the unvaxxed were stopping people from having their freedom and it was only right that the vaxxed should be given some freedom that should be denied to the unvaxxed. That pos made it appear that the unvaxxed had demanded lockdowns and masking because they were unvaxxed and wanted to be protected, rather than the simple fact that the health minister and his scum buddies in the cabinet had run roughshod over the constitution and human rights treaties and it was they who had unlawfully chosen to deprive people of their rights and freedoms – all so that they would be willing to accept not only the poison, but the poisonous nazi pass that went with the poison and “allowed” people to have their constitutionally-protected rights returned to them. And people who had lost both their basic decency and their basic sanity, rather than stringing the b*stard up, went along with it and would have probably physically attacked the unvaxxed if given enough encouragement.
And in any case we blatantly can’t ‘return to the life one once had’.
i cannot travel freely. I do not feel safe to consult within the nhs or seek routine procedures in hospitals.
i can no longer go to hydrotherapy or other treatments. It is too risky, given the unknowns about shedding & mutations, apart from some such places still mandating being jabbed.
fortunately I am content being ‘a recluse’ as I was called…but I am really apprehensive about where it all goes from here.
It’s surprising to see the author gloss over how experimental the mRNA and DNA transfection technologies are. They are so much more than a “new medicine”, they are a completely new approach to medicine. Rather than treat the body as a system that responds to stimuli in the form of chemicals, these treatments seek to program the body’s response. They are in every sense a gene therapy, but for the EU’s exclusion of treatments for infectious diseases being classified as gene therapies.
It’s for this reason that little to no testing was done and no testing was done on the bivalent vaccines. Testing is the old paradigm, where we give the body a substance and let it come back with a response. We observe the responses over a long period of time and with a broader population. Programming is the new paradigm, where we instruct the system to do or be whatever we choose, assuming we have full mastery of the entire system and can attribute any corruption or system failure to other causes.
In this way we can run the whole program through the Department of Defense in the US and the trials are nothing more than a sham to assuage the public. We can shove this thing into the bodies of pregnant women and children and threaten them with sanctions if they don’t comply. We can impose lockdowns on the whole population then set them against the refuseniks when they won’t take it. After all, we have full mastery of all the bodies in the world and what we do is for the greater good!
This is why I didn’t get vaccinated. I read Moderna’s website about Hacking the Kingdom of Life and how the body was to be treated like computer hardware and their treatments were like apps and other computer code, telling the body what to do. You can’t tell me this so-called technology has been tested enough or that humans have anywhere near the level of knowledge to meddle in it. Notwithstanding that they were an uppity little startup with a megalomaniacal founder, similar to Biontec. I would never trust any third party to install their “Software of Life” on me and start sending genetic instructions around my body. Instantly I knew that these things were not vaccines in any sense of the word and I completely lost all faith in anything any so-called doctor said in support of them. That faith has not returned and we’re now going forward into a new age of genetic medicine. So vaccines will not be the only treatment I’ll be refusing. Soon these things will be in the air we breathe and the food we eat.
I do agree.
this is it, above all : “that humans have anywhere near the level of knowledge to meddle in it.”
VG article, so many thanks to the author.
He mentions claims about the jabs by officials in the USA – Biden, Fauci, Walensky – that turned out to be garbage.
Can anyone recall whether similar claims that turned out to be so blatantly false were made by equivalent UK officials – Boris, Hancock, Witty etc (or their equivalents in Wales or Scotland)?
‘Much of the research for mRNA vaccines had already been done over many years, ‘
Is that so? I understand that there had been a lot of research into, and trial of mRNA in targeting cancer cells with disappointing results and concerns raised about safety.
It’s use for vaccination was hurried – weeks – untried, untested and clearly poorly researched.
Why didn’t I get vaccinated?
Because when the ‘crisis’ emerged in late February/early March), I happened to notice an absence of sick people. Surprisingly few people noticed this.
In a typical Winter season, people with coughs & sneezes, with Colds are routine and noticeable. Some Winters, staff sickness cause disruption of transportation and businesses.
Yet none of this was visible for an alleged killer virus, that was sweeping the World, dangerous to all and would cause hospitals and undertakers to be overwhelmed.
Once that was apparent, the ‘need’ for a vaccine (or any other measure) didn’t exist.
Plus: since the end of the war, despite decades of research, no safe and effective vaccines (or cures) have been found for the Common Cold – caused by a long list of virus including 4 coronaviruses), and no effective vaccine – outside its annual promotional campaign – found for influenza.
The notion that a safe effective vaccine could be found within a couple of months for a new variation of Cold-causing coronavirus, was not believable.
For me to take a medicament which clearly had no benefit and of unknown risk, is something I didn’t have to think much about. Not on your Nelly!
That is largely how I reached the “No firkin way” position. I did have some advantages though: as soon as the shit show started I was sceptical so I started researching and once I had found the Lockstep 2010 document and then Agenda 2030 I definitely had my guard up.
Once “vaccines” came in to the story I researched vaccines and lo and behold I found that vaccines take 10-15 years before having a chance of being marketed, not ten weeks. Plus most first world countries were operating in Lockstep – hmm? And of course we ‘couldn’t go back to normal’ without a “vaccine.”
It stunk to high heaven and I was a big fat NO even before the vaccine propoganda commenced.
I had no idea what Agenda 2030 and Lockstep was pre-March 2020, so that did not form in my decision making – see my post for what did.
But the good news is that post March 2020, my realisation of how weird life had suddenly become did lead to me find out what these things are.
And the even better news, tens of millions like me will have trodden the same path and become fully awake as a result of this ludicrous and failed experiment.
I’m sorry that the author had to write what seems like a trivial comment at the end….
While I appreciate he might not want to compare his own ‘suffering’ …He comes across as thinking that what happened wasn’t much of a hardship….
I would point out that in some countries people lost jobs, couldn’t go to shops to buy food, couldn’t work, couldn’t send their children to school and college ….
Austria wouldn’t allow the unvaccinated to enter non-essential businesses, sports and entertainment facilities…they changed the law so that they could gain access to medical data, so they could trace the unvaccinated…..
Australia tried to bring in a bill whereby everyone who didn’t get vaccinated against Covid-19 would receive a fine of up to 3,600 euros, equivalent to $4,000, that would be imposed every three months if they continued to reject the vaccine.
Greece did fine unvaccinated individuals….
In the Czech Republic unvaccinated people couldn’t attend public events, pubs or restaurants….…and both Greece and the Czech Republic mandated vaccines for all over 60’s….
In Italy you couldn’t work without a green pass..and you could only get a green pass by being vaccinated…..Doctors and nurses were only allowed to return to work barely three months ago…..that’s a long time to have no money for food and rent….
It was never trivial for a great many people…and shouldn’t be treated as if it were nothing more than a bit of nuisance…..
Of course the vax stage was later. Their over the top response and multiple lies for lockdowns and the no.10 presentations led by psychopaths had so queered the pitch that by the time the vaccines were ready the whole plot stank to high heaven.
Yup.
I still don’t know anyone that has died from the Wuhan Flu. Some people I know who had a dose of this (nearly everyone has) have said how terrible it was. I had all previous flus and they were all bad – Asian, Hong Kong, Swine, SARS 1, even the common cold can be miserable.
Very true. I must confess, I too got jabbed grudgingly in April/May 2021 (but no further doses since then). Not so much because I feared possibly my job, but because I was on the fence and was the very last holdout in my department at my job, and they had to hit a certain target percentage for the whole company to lift restrictions for all of us, and I didn’t want to hold my co-workers back. (A microcosm of my home state of New York in general.) That, and also my elderly aunt would have most likely refused to fly in to visit me back then if I remained unjabbed, and who knows if I would ever see her again.
I would like to think that I remained an ally, albeit an imperfect one, to the unjabbed all along, and I never ever supported forcing or coercing anyone to get jabbed. I have gone on the record from day one opposing jab mandates, even when I wasn’t always against the jabs per se. I have never shunned, mocked, insulted, or degraded anyone for their choice not to get jabbed, in fact I often applauded it. After all, I have at least one close family member who remains unjabbed to this day, and several friends like that too. Were there some times that I have been silent when I should have spoken up? You bet there were. Looking back, I can only cringe at some of the missed opportunities to possibly jam the culture for the better. But I would still like to think that I only did what I thought was right at the time, and that I chose my battles carefully.
His thinking on this superbly encapsulates mine.
There would be three things I would add though, which have all been included in my thinking all along. They are:
1. Knowledge of Big Pharma’s appalling track record on other drugs and crapcinnes – the massive fines in the past, plus the fact that 60 per cent of new drugs get withdrawn inside 10 years due to severe side effects and or because they simply don’t work properly.
2. Fifty years of trying to develop vaccines against common cold coronavirus had failed, but magically with money on the line, they had created a safe one in nine months.
3. I had studied psychology and the Asch and Milgram experiments on conformity and obedience applicable to mass formation psychosis to explain past history (and how whole populations could follow Hitler, Stalin, Mao et al) and simply applied that to the current time.
I guess other people were unaware of these issues or like in past times in other places were made to stop thinking as a result of the psychological pressure applied. Somehow, I and many others on here were immune.
I would say to Mr Adams “What Mr Koerner said…… plus (a) I’m not an idiot (b) I don’t like being ordered around and (c) the Globalists’ unrelenting jabby, jabby propaganda completely backfired with me and massively triggered my dormant needle phobia so there was no way on God’s green earth that I was going to queue to get it …… and I would have assaulted anyone trying to make me.
I am still astounded that so many supposedly intelligent, or even vaguely normal, people volunteered to participate in a mass medical experiment with no safety data and no guaranteed compensation if something went wrong when the companies pushing the monkey juice had been indemnified from any fault.
Indeed. I told him on Twitter how this complete medical lay person was able to do enough research even before the vaxxes hit the street, research which confirmed to me that whatever they produced would be very likely extremely dangerous to humans.
All the more so as the trials all skipped the animal testing phase which brought all previous attempts to create a Coronavirus vax to a grinding stop. ADE. Infecting vaccinated ferrets (don’t snigger – their respiratory system is the most similar to the human one) after being jabbed killed them – Antibody-Dependent Enhancement, aka a “Cytokine storm”, usually resulting in a rapid and horrible death as the immune system turned on itself.
Added to that that this was a novel means of jab, which could not have been properly tested in the time available, that by definition NO long term testing had taken place, and that it was the product of such as Pfizer, who I already knew to be the most fined Pharma company of all time, often for misleading data about their products.
That took me a few hours. That fully qualified medical staff could not be bothered to do the same, and are only now going “mea culpa” is shocking.
An excellent article. Many thanks.
And a pandemic created in computer models rather than real world data.
The virus, or at least the pretence of a pandemic, was clearly concocted/confected to justify the ‘vaccines’. Despite its wealth and power, the pharmaceutical industry is surely not in a position to stage such an event. So we are left with the critical questions WHO did this to the world and WHY?
What all states have now as a result of this fraud is a list of individuals who can’t be fooled by propaganda. Was this the real aim of the exercise? And if it was, what compelled them to need to determine this? That to me is the real question.
I struggle to find any sympathy for those who were fooled by the obviously preposterous claims that were made about these injections. I think we as sceptics need to take some learning away from this, just like the perpetrators did.
Importantly, we know now that about 80% of our fellow humans are moronic babes in the wood who would cut their own heads off if Fergus Walsh told them it was safe and effective.