It’s hardly a surprise that Scott Adams is “taking the L” ungraciously. He still can’t admit that those who chose to remain unvaccinated did so on the basis of accurately assessing the available information and reaching the correct logical conclusion. This is grade-A Gamma secret kinging.
Scott Adams@ScottAdamsSays
I bow to your data-free analysis. You win.
His Twitter followers aren’t buying it. As they shouldn’t.
- On data… early on, we had to look at mechanisms and examples – because of no data. Mechanism… Vit D, immune support. Examples: past mRNA woes. Now we have data but don’t know what to trust.
- We had lots of data Scott. We knew the ‘vaccine’ was in clinical trials till 2023. We knew covid deaths included any cause with 28 days. We knew covid was only impacting sick or old. We knew ‘face coverings’ useless. You had access to the above too. What went wrong?
- Gut instincts & experience are never to be relied upon, only ‘science’ provided by people who have a financial stake in that ‘science’ or a political motivation to control people.
- Absence of safety data is self-sufficient reason not to take risk. It’s logical to evaluate risk before you take it. Then you had many different ways to find out why risk not worth to take.
- Answering this question doesn’t require accurate data on the safety of the vaccine vs catching COVID. Experts who said “yes” told me they weren’t motivated by saving lives or telling the truth, & could be ignored. Then I was unsurprised to learn they mostly lied elsewhere.
- I worked with PCR. I understood the science behind it. When the gov/Pharma/MSM all supported PCR at high cycles, ignoring solid, factual science…where were your analytics? We knew the data, the science, & analyzed what was happening, coming to the conclusion the PCR was invalid.
- I think I can give everyone some indicators. When the same people pushing CRT, wars, & drag shows to little children say get vaccinated, it is a clue. When the fed gov exempts themselves from something, it is a clue. When there is 24/7 propaganda, the opposite is most likely true.
- How did you analyze mRNA? When the gov changed the definition for “vaccine” they ignored all the science. How did you analyze those two things together? My analysis of previous science & experience in science allowed me to come to the conclusion that the Covid shots would be bad.
- There was a lot of data analysis to use. We weren’t lucky. We used solid, factual, science based truths to come to logical conclusions. Our analysis was good. Hopefully, you’ll take a longer look at your own basis of analysis and find what went wrong.
- They came up with a “vaccine” in 6 months for a Corona virus-something we never have had before. Then they started forcing people to take it(2 flags).The same govt & “science” that want us to eat bugs and get rid of our gas stoves (3 flags). They also masked little kids-4 flags
- Lack of data is a MAJOR piece of data… I still cannot believe that it wasn’t mandatory to see the clinical trial data before roll out to expedite peer review and to prove transparency…
- A healthy distrust of government and big pharma was all the early analysis that was needed. I am willing to wait for data to analyze, absent data the default position should be no for the average person. People with comorbidities had to gamble with more risk.
- There is an ample sample size of government lies to assume fraud by default.
- It’s not just looking at data. Making smart decisions also includes analysis of circumstances, motivations, facts and sources. I.e., critical thinking. This was an easy one.
- The problem is, when data was given you dismissed it as bad data repeatedly…
- What good did your data analysis get you? Believe it or not Scott, there are others out there who understand game theory. You’re not the only one. If the data you input into your analysis is dogshit, the results you get are dogshit. You used dogshit data and got dogshit.
- Hardly data free analysis. Zelenko, Malone, McCullough,Gold,Kory,Wolf,FLCCC, and many many more. Out there for nearly 3 years
- There was plenty of data both past and present. The fact that you still can’t see it and think we were all just lucky shows that you have learned nothing. Your opinions should never be trusted again. You simply lack the brain power to be taken seriously.
My own thought process on the subject of the Covid-19 vaccines was very simple, straightforward, and proved to be reliable. I observed that the people most actively involved in pushing the vaxx propaganda were outspoken global depopulationists. Therefore, I concluded that the vaxx was not intended to save lives and thereby increase the global population, it was intended to reduce the global population, most likely through adverse effects on human fertility.
And everything else, from the relentless government propaganda campaigns to the scientific information revealed by Karl Denninger and the inexplicable demonization of cheap, effective, and widespread substances like Vitamin D, zinc, and Ivermectin, collectively did nothing more than confirm the correctness of my initial conclusion.