Unvaccinated: The Correct Choice
Scott Adams and the COVID Vaccine
Scott Adams, the creator of the beloved cartoon strip Dilbert, is known for his keen observation and understanding of human behavior. Recently, he made headlines for his mea culpa on the COVID vaccine. In a video that has been circulating on social media, he admitted that “the unvaccinated were the winners” and expressed his desire to understand how so many of his viewers got it right about the vaccine while he didn’t.
The Long-Term Safety of the Vaccine
As someone who declined the vaccine, I can attest that the decision was not made lightly. One of the main concerns was the lack of long-term testing. While some argue that the vaccine was not created in a hurry, it was still rolled out without sufficient long-term testing. This means that no claim could be made with confidence about the long-term safety of the vaccine.
Given this uncertainty, the unquantifiable long-term risk of taking the vaccine could only be justified by an extremely high certain risk of not taking it. This moral and scientific argument could only be made for those at high risk of severe illness if exposed to COVID. The data immediately showed that the overwhelming majority of the population, including myself, was not in this group.
The Immorality of Mass Vaccination
The continued insistence on rolling out the vaccine to the entire population, despite the data revealing that those with no comorbidities were at low risk of severe illness or death from COVID, was therefore immoral and ascientific on its face. The argument that mass vaccination would reduce transmission from the non-vulnerable to the vulnerable could only stand if the long-term safety of the vaccine had been established, which it had not.
The policy makers did not even acknowledge the grave responsibility they were taking on for knowingly putting people at risk, nor did they indicate how they had weighed the risks before reaching their policy positions. This is a concerning lack of transparency and accountability.
Conclusion
While everyone’s decision about the vaccine is personal and should be respected, it is important to consider all the available information before making a choice. The lack of long-term testing and the potential risks associated with the vaccine cannot be ignored. It is time for policy makers to acknowledge these concerns and provide transparency and accountability to the public.
stake. It’s time to take a closer look at the reasons behind the push for the COVID vaccine. Here are six reasons why we should be skeptical:
Reasons to be Skeptical of the COVID Vaccine
1. Dishonesty from Policy-Makers
The language used by policy-makers was unequivocal and suggested no risk whatsoever of taking the vaccine. This advice was simply false, or at best, misleading. Any honest presentation of the risks would have involved equivocal language and the public availability of information about how the risks were weighed and the decision was made.
2. Suppression of Data
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.
3. Disproportionality of Response
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.
4. Fear-Driven Panic
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. In the grip of such panic or mass formation psychosis, the evidential bar for extreme claims rises yet further.
5. Legal Immunity for Manufacturers
The companies responsible for manufacturing and ultimately profiting from the vaccine were given legal immunity. Why would a government do that if it really believed that the vaccine was safe and wanted to instill 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?
6. Suppression of Dissent
If the vaccine-skeptical 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?” Suppressing information a priori suggests that the information has persuasive force.
In conclusion, we should be skeptical of the COVID vaccine and the policies surrounding it. It’s time to ask questions and demand transparency from those in power. Our health and well-being depend on it.signify a significant increase in mortality, it is still concerning. Additionally, the study only followed participants for six months, leaving open the question of long-term effects. It is important to note that this study was funded by Pfizer, the same company that produced the vaccine being tested.
As a responsible individual, it is crucial to question the information being presented to us and to seek out answers to our concerns. Blindly accepting the claims of those in positions of authority without doing our own research is a dangerous path to take. We must demand transparency and accountability from those who are promoting policies that affect our health and well-being.
So, let’s ask the tough questions and demand answers. Let’s not be afraid to challenge the status quo and seek out the truth. Our health and our future depend on it.
Are We Being Misled About the COVID-19 Vaccine?
Questioning the Safety and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Vaccine
It’s no secret that the COVID-19 vaccine has been a hot topic since its inception. While some people have been quick to get vaccinated, others have been more hesitant, questioning the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. And with good reason.
Recent data has shown that the vaccine may not be as safe or effective as we’ve been led to believe. In fact, some of the claims made by politicians and media commentators have been proven false by subsequent findings.
The Need for Transparency and Accountability
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.
False Claims and Misinformation
Some of the claims made by politicians and media commentators have been proven false by subsequent findings. For example:
- Joe Biden: “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 …”
- Anthony Fauci: “The vaccines are safe and effective.”
- Dr. Rochelle Walensky: “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.”
- Justice Sotomayer: “We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in … in serious condition and many on ventilators.”
These claims have been contradicted by subsequent findings, yet no one has taken responsibility for spreading misinformation.
The Need for Reassessment
It’s time for an honest reassessment of the COVID-19 vaccine and the policies surrounding it. The government’s own data has shown that the vaccine may not be as safe or effective as we’ve been led to believe. It’s time for transparency and accountability, and for individuals to put clearly on the record the requisite corrections and retractions of statements that might influence decisions that affect health.
d the “vaccine” would have required a sea change in policy to match our evolving understanding of the risks associated with the virus. Unfortunately, such a change never came. Instead, policy positions and supposed factual bases were unreliable and untrustworthy.
So, what was the new science that suddenly made a “vaccine” more effective than natural immunity? And why the rush to vaccinate those who had already recovered from COVID and had some level of immunity? These questions remain unanswered.
The overall political and cultural context surrounding the “vaccine” discourse only raised the evidential bar for safety and efficacy, while reducing our ability to determine whether that bar had been met. Conversations with “unvaccinated” individuals often turned defensive, with moral judgment inhibiting objective analysis.
In the realm of analytics, precision is not always accuracy. Models can be dangerous, as they provide an illusion of accuracy while ignoring the uncertainties and assumptions that underlie their outputs. We saw this with HIV in the ’80s and ’90s, where faulty models led to the creation of an entire industry that pushed experimental drugs on those with the virus, resulting in countless deaths.
It’s time for an honest approach to data on COVID and the “vaccine.” We need to move beyond moral judgment and focus on objective analysis to ensure that our policies and decisions are based on accurate information.The Shocking Truth About COVID Policy and Vaccination Mandates
The Government’s Dishonesty
Reducing Data Accuracy for Political Purposes
The urgent need for accurate data on COVID infections and patient outcomes was ignored by those in power. Instead, policy decisions were made that knowingly reduced the accuracy of collected data to serve political purposes. They stopped distinguishing between dying of COVID and dying with COVID and incentivized medical institutions to identify deaths as caused by COVID without clinical data to support it.
Changing Definitions for Political Gain
The pro-“vaccine” side repeatedly changed the official definitions of clinical terms like “vaccine” to suit their agenda. This dishonesty is anti-science and erodes our ability to trust evidence.
The Lack of Evidence
Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence
Under the right contextual conditions, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The lack of evidence presented by those pushing the “vaccine” and lockdown policies was evidence of its absence.
Human Rights Violations
The “vaccination” policy enabled massive human rights violations. Those who were “vaccinated” were happy to see the “unvaccinated” have basic freedoms removed.
My Decision Not to Take the “Vaccine”
For all of these reasons, I became COVID-“vaccine”-skeptical. I was waiting for the questions and issues raised to be answered and resolved before potentially getting “vaccinated.” However, a conclusive point brought me to decide that I would not be taking the “vaccine” under prevailing conditions. 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.
Why I Refused to Get Vaccinated for the Sake of My Principles and Rights
Important Moments
Births, deaths, funerals, and other important moments in life have been impacted by the pandemic. However, some people got vaccinated just to regain their privileges-for-the-“vaccinated” rights that were taken away from everyone else. For me, that would have been a compromise of my principles and participation in the destruction of the most basic rights that our peaceful society depends on.
My Grandfather’s Sacrifice
My Austrian grandfather fled to England from Vienna as a teenager and joined Churchill’s army to defeat Hitler. Hitler was responsible for the murder of my great-grandfather, who was a Jew. The camps began as a way to quarantine Jews who were regarded as vectors of disease that had to have their rights removed for the protection of the wider population. In 2020, all I had to do in defense of such rights was to put up with limited travel and being barred from my favorite restaurants, etc. for a few months.
Standing Up for Principles and Rights
Even if I were at risk of being hospitalized by COVID, I would not compromise my principles and rights. 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” 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.
Submit Your Opinion Piece
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
