Skip to main content

Scott Adams is NOT on Team Reality

Cartoonist Scott Adams admitted the other day that the "anti-vaxxers"--meaning people who didn't want an experimental COVID shot--had "won." Like Emily "we were all in the dark" Oster, he chalked up his loss to bad luck instead of his own bad judgment. 


Sorry, Scott, but there's no substitute for doing your own research using primary sources and learning how to read those sources. It's like the first three rules from Joel Greenblatt's book You can be a Stock Market Genius:

  1. Do your own work.
  2. Don't trust anyone over 30.
  3. Don't trust anyone 30 or under. 

Get it? Sinking your fortune or your health into something you haven't carefully researched is risky. As for following the experts (under 30, over 30 or otherwise), these experts don't work for you, they don't suffer any consequences for being wrong, and renegades who pan a stock or pharmaceutical get excommunicated. 

Even though COVID dissidents were censored, information and lessons on interpretation were out there. Dr. Sebastian Rushworth's book COVID: Why Most of What you Know is Wrong explained, succinctly and in laymen's terms, scientific studies and statistics. Looking at Pfizer's own study, he called the number of severe adverse events "concerning" and observed that Pfizer didn't say what those events were. And--the book is from 2021--he noted, "none of these studies has looked into whether these vaccines prevent those who have been vaccinated from spreading the infection to others, so there is at present no data to support that claim." Dr. Rushworth was less concerned about the Moderna shot, but he was right about the rest simply by reading and interpreting the drug companies' own studies. All of this was presented in a way where you could check his work instead of taking him on faith.

Maybe not many people saw that book. Fair enough--but every state had COVID dashboards where you could see the overwhelming majority of deaths were among the old and the metabolically unhealthy. Independent journalist Alex Berenson was on Twitter and then Substack reporting on the shots; nurse John Campbell, Dr. Suneel Dhand, Dr. Vinay Prasad, biologists Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying and others were on YouTube interpreting COVID studies and news. For a while, YouTube had local TV news videos every day of people who'd suffered severe adverse reactions to the COVID shot. Plenty of information was out there for people willing to do their own work--or at least listen to others who had.

But there was something even more basic: the "vaccines" were novel, experimental-stage medical products created, tested and marketed by an industry with a spotty safety record. The people least insulated from disaster--the poor and least educated--were the most wary even if they couldn't explain why. 

To be fair to Scott Adams, there were people who more lucky than right. Some of them will take a loss when their child suffers or dies from an entirely preventable disease. But putting all of us in that category by calling us "anti-vaxxers" is intellectually dishonest and a disqualification for Team Reality.



Popular posts from this blog

Quack Cures for Vax Injuries

The quacks failed dieters, they failed diabetics, they failed thyroid patients, and now they're failing the vaccine injured. Quack doctors--meaning most doctors--handle difficult, non-emergency cases like this: Question whether there's really a problem Run tests that almost always come back "normal" Suggest the problem is psychological, or somehow the patient's fault Public health! Photo from Pexels . Why can't they just admit they don't know? I listened to a meeting of vaccine-injured people where one seemed to think that doctors knew what the problem really was, but wouldn't say. No--they really don't know. When endocrinologists (hormone doctors) have no idea how to treat diabetes or thyroid problems, dead common hormonal conditions with good protocols established decades ago, they're not going to know about anything about a brand-new condition.  Having suffered with headaches and GI problems doctors couldn't fix, I can understand why peo

Lousy Mood? It Could be the Food

Here's a funny AMV(1) on what it's like to be depressed, apathetic and overly sensitive. Note: explicit (but funny) lyrics in the video. Hearing this song brought a startling realization: I used to be emo, but with normal clothes. Sulking, sobbing and writing poetry were my hobbies. When I was a kid, my mother said that she wouldn't know what to do to punish me if I had done something wrong. And yet things got worse. Over a two-week period in 1996, my best friend moved away, I lost my job and broke up with my boyfriend. I lost my appetite and lived on a daily bagel, cream cheese and a Coke for the next few months. I had tried counseling, and didn't find it helpful; in fact, I found reviving painful memories was pointless. Not thinking about them, on the other hand, worked wonders. Later on, so did studying philosophy and learning to think through emotions instead of just riding through them. But what's blown away all the techniques is diet. Since

Body for Life: What Went Wrong, Part 1

Some readers may know that I was a Body for Life enthusiast for six years. At age 33, I had no workout program, was a little on the fleshy side, and yet I was constantly hungry. A friend showed me a book called Body for Life (BFL) by Bill Phillips, and I was so impressed by the before and after photos that I tried the program. The plan consisted of eating six servings each of carbohydrates and proteins and two servings of green vegetables per day, plus six short but hard workouts per week. (A serving is the size of your fist.) I did, indeed, go down two dress sizes quickly and build muscle while eating more on BFL. Four years later, I had recovered from a sprained neck and back from a car wreck and resumed BFL in earnest. But it stopped working, and by late 2009, I had put on 20 pounds of fat despite following the diet as well as I had before and being diligent about workouts. Why did the same program produce different results at different times? This is the question I’ll explore in th

What Happened to the ADA Guidelines to Eat Lots of Carbs?

Awhile back, I was looking at the ADA website (American Diabetes Association) to see their carb recommendations. Oddly, I couldn't find any. No, I didn't imagine having seen dietary recommendations designed to keep diabetics sick and the organization's  medication and sugar sponsors in the clover--they changed their page in August 2017. Here's the old page  via the Wayback Machine from June 2017, recommending 45-60 grams of carbohydrate or even more per meal: Look at the list of junk food on their site from 2017: So how much carbohydrate do they say diabetics should eat? Figure it out yourself! The ADA is a bunch of narcissistic assholes for ever recommending that diabetics--people with a disease of carbohydrate intolerance--eat a baked potato, or a cup of pasta or cake or ice cream at every meal . Don't expect them to ever admit they were wrong. 

What a Balanced Diet Really Means

I often hear the term "balanced diet" used to attack low-carb eating. "You're cutting out entire food groups!" some people cry, as if their own recommendations didn't curtail or cut out other entire groups like red meat and fat. "Good health = balanced diet, and that means some carbs," said Paul Nuki of the NHS Choices web site after he called low-carb proponents "quacks." To be clear, a low-carb diet isn't a no-carb diet. Even Atkins induction call for two small green salads a day; it's just starchy foods such as potatoes, sugary fruit and grains that are limited so much that many of us don't bother with them. It might also clarify things to know where the idea of a balanced diet came from. Early in the 20th century, the disease pellagra was the scourge of the American South. Poor Asians from India to Japan suffered from beriberi. Rickets was rampant in parts of the United States. What do pellagra, beriberi, and rickets