We, including me, continue to give the benefit of the doubt to our enemies. There are even generally smart conservatives who believe "we" should trust our military, and support war in Ukraine...based on Biden trust and decades of deep brainwashing. Doing 100% what Biden wants. 100% what the government suggests.
I think we've all made that mistake. I almost made it with the vaccines. I still think the relatively normal J&J vaccine is relatively safe -- just 100% useless against the virus, at best, with some risk of clotting/heart attack. But if I was FORCED to take a vaccine, that is the one I would choose.
Scott Adams if fessing up to his misplaced trust in government. I admire him for his integrity in publicly admitting his mistake and not dancing around it.
This article explains, quite logically, if statistically, why the vaccines were a really, really, really LOUSY "bet". There were other ways at getting to that conclusion. My own turning point came when someone made the claim that "the vaccines" modified human DNA. I thought that too much "conspiracy theory" at the beginning because SURELY they would never have authorized use of anything if the evidence that it couldn't POSSIBLY interact with reverse transcriptase wasn't stone cold, 1,000,000 x proven, fact. On the other hand, I couldn't figure out, off the cuff, how any such thing as blocking mRNA from using reverse transcriptase, freely available in the human cell.
So, it was in an attempt to prove someone else wrong that I started digging and quickly came to the horrifying conclusion that these quasi-scientists and quasi-doctors didn't care...or were truely too stupid to understand even BASIC chemistry: ALL reactions run both ways. All of them. Heck I even know a PhD organic chemist who fell for the vaccine...although I think he was also heavily threatened if he didn't go along.
So, he thought he was playing the odds. He trusted "his government" 1000 times too much ... when we should all know by now that "our government" isn't ours...and isn't legitimate under the Constitution. And neither is the military. None of it.
http://www.zerohedge.com/political/how-unvaccinated-got-it-right
How The "Unvaccinated" Got It Right
Authored by Robin Koerner via The Brownstone Institute,
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 behavior. 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 corona-viruses 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 ascientific on its face.
(continued at link; it is a fairly long article)
| 
