Scott Adams Says Vaccine Skeptics Were Right [Video]

Scott Adams Says Vaccine Skeptics Were RightNiamh Harris – The creator of the ‘Dilbert’ comics Scott Adams is now admitting that the “anti-vaxxers were right” not to trust the experiment covid jabs that are now being shown to be ineffective and far from safe.

Adams, who shared that he had taken the jab said he always wondered whether something bad would happen.

He now says that the the anti-vaxxers, who basically didn’t trust the injections or the government, have “clearly won.”

InfoWars reports: His admission indicative of the sea change against the COVID injection as more data continues to emerge showing the COVID shot brings high risks of adverse reactions and offers no protection from the coronavirus.

“I’m gonna tell you that the anti-vaxxers appear to be right,” Adams said Saturday on his podcast “Real Coffee With Scott Adams.”

“Anybody who did not get vaccinated, got a little omicron or maybe even a worse one but recovered, now you’ve got natural immunity and you have no vaccination in you. Can we all agree that was the winning path?”

“The smartest, happiest people are the ones who didn’t get the vaccination and they’re still alive,” he continued. “I want to make sure I’m not leaving any wiggle room for myself.”

“The anti-vax people appear to be the winners. The anti-vaxxers clearly are the winners at this point, and I think it’ll probably stay that way. And I don’t want to put any shade on that whatsoever. They came out the best. They have the winning position,” he added.

He went on to say that the unvaccinated have the “advantage” because they don’t have to worry about potential vaccine side effects in the future.

“The unvaccinated have a current advantage because they feel better that the thing they’re not worrying about is what I have to worry about, which is, ‘I wonder if that vaccination five years from now…” he said.

Adams also noted that those who took the default position of distrusting the government and corporations on the vaccines “won completely.”

“The anti-vaxxers were distrustful of big companies and big government. That’s never wrong. It’s never wrong to distrust government and big companies,” he said. “So if you took the position, ‘Let’s just distrust everything the government did,’ well, you won. You won completely. I did not end up in the right place. The right place would be natural immunity and no vaccination.”

But at one point, Adams claimed those skeptical of the COVID injection were simply driven by “heuristics” rather than available data.

“All of my fancy analytics got me to a bad place,” he said. “All of your heuristics — ‘don’t trust these guys’ is obvious — totally worked.”

But as The Liberty Daily pointed out, plenty of evidence was available long before the COVID jabs were officially rolled out:

– mRNA technology had been disastrous in ALL previous developments and tests, including horrible deaths for animal subjects a decade earlier.

– Anthony Fauci was leading the charge to promote the jabs, and as everyone should have been aware of before listening to him, his track record of giving advice in the early days of new diseases is abysmal. Lest we forget, this is the guy who went on national television to tell people they could catch AIDS just be being near an infected family member.

– One of the first nurses to get jabbed, Tiffany Dover, seemed to have an adverse reaction almost immediately. Some argue that she had a thing for needles, to which I would ask why they would pick someone who had a problem with needles to get jabbed on television? And why would she be a nurse if she’s scared of needles? And where is she now?

– Perhaps most importantly, by the time the jabs were ready to roll out, the death rates for Covid-19 had dropped dramatically. It was as if the numbers were artificially inflated ahead of the presidential election, only to have a perfectly timed miracle of three jabs simultaneously coming available a couple of weeks later.

SF Source News Punch Jan 2023

2 thoughts on “Scott Adams Says Vaccine Skeptics Were Right [Video]

  1. (reply to previous) As the eon of mentalism disintegrates before our very eyes, how does this actually manifest?

    It’s peaceful. Why? Becomes the new eon is founded on the heart mind of consciousness. What happens to those who cling to mentalism? They peacefully become more and more stupid.
    How does a conscious being who lives in the intention of mentalism switch out of mentalism? By announcing aloud with true intention to the inner being of your conscious cognizance, “I now set intention with the spirit of my heart and light of my being to terminate my current commitment to mentalism and to engage a new consciousness founded on the organic heart mind of benevolent consciousness.” (But don’t say this till you clear mental energy from your cognizance.) “I now set intention with spirit and light to shift all mental energy into my heart center of consciousness.” Failure to clear mental energy results in potential results outside your intention.

    After all, what is mentalism but an (ultimately) backhanded way to perform malevolence across an entire planetary civilization?

  2. The jab has been many things most of which lead to the disintegration of its intent.

    How can the disintegration of its intent be described and how can this disintegrate? The jab has been the ultimate climax of an eon of mentalism. A snake who devours even itself at its climactic conclusion. The mental mind is the appliance of an alien control system. Before the inception of a mental mind, consciousness lived innately through the corded inner being guidance. The alien mental mind intercepted this communication much like a “fixed” football game.
    Mentalism is heralded for it’s progress much the way that progress decimated an entire continent of indigenous beings.
    What mechanism within mentalism would lead to its self-destruction? It’s the nature of the beast to become so bloated in self smuggery (aka Pelosi) it becomes stupid. And stupid is as stupid does.
    Can it be that simple? Can the truth be so simple beneath a convolution of stacked lies?

    To be sure, the answer is personal, but only if you go within.

Please leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.