"You won" is a gesture of resignation and resentment.

Scott -- we were never trying to defeat you -- we were trying to save your life. We were trying to keep your heart intact.

Expand full comment

Based on his assumption that those who didn't get vaccinated made their decision based on distrust of the "authorities," not necessarily on facts, and his statement,

"Your position is going from the weakest to the strongest," he still believes that we were lucky; we couldn't have known that we would end up in the better position.

Yet the VRBPAC documents were available before the shots were rolled out. I don't think my position was ever the weakest. It wasn't ever "analytics vs heuristics".

The following benefits and risks were unknown at the time the COVID-19 vaccines from both Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech were first given Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA in December 2020.

They can be found on pages 48-51 of the Moderna VRBPAC document, and pages 46-49 of the Pfizer VRBPAC document.

(VRBPAC= Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee)

Moderna document:


Pfizer document:


Unknown Benefits/Data Gaps:

*Duration of protection

*Effectiveness in certain populations at high-risk of severe COVID-19

*Effectiveness in individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2

*Effectiveness in pediatric populations

*Future vaccine effectiveness as influenced by characteristics of the pandemic, changes in the virus, and/or potential effects of co-infections

*Vaccine effectiveness against asymptomatic infection

*Vaccine effectiveness against long-term effects of COVID-19 disease

*Vaccine effectiveness against mortality

*Vaccine effectiveness against transmission of SARS-CoV-2

Unknown Risks/Data Gaps:

*Safety in certain subpopulations

*Adverse reactions that are very uncommon or that require longer follow-up to be detected

*Vaccine-enhanced disease

Expand full comment
Jan 23Liked by Mathew Crawford

Scotts Adams seems to be a controlling narcissistic midwit that was always best ignored. Self awareness isn’t his thing. The right strategy was / is; block / unfollow. And yes, “worst apology ever”

Expand full comment
Jan 23Liked by Mathew Crawford

The WHO published a Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance Manual in May of 2020. It was 232 pages long and I read all of it. On about page 111, there was a list of all the potential complications expected and most of them are what we are seeing today unfold around us. That manual has been scrubbed from the internet last I looked. I had saved it. I also read the comments from PhDs in immunology embedded in the comments sections of articles from journals like “Nature” and “Science” and though these were very technical critiques, I looked up every term I did not know and read deeper into immunology texts to gain understanding and what I gleaned did not look good for these products. I made a considered decision not to take these products after many months of research and my background was in nursing and medicine as an NP. So it wasn’t just “distrust” of governmental institutions or even Pharma. I’d seen multiple drugs pulled off the market having caused deaths and injuries over my 30 year career. But it was the many hours of research that led to my decision. Scott Adams could have read all that I had read. But he didn’t, apparently. That makes him an arrogant prick for saying “it was a coin toss” or “luck.” No, it wasn’t. And I agree, that was no apology… thank you Mathew. Stellar post.

Expand full comment

I’m not on Twitter and never knew of Adams before the “apology” went viral this weekend. Annoying to watch-a typical “you were right, BUT” speech which is not an apology or a mea culpa at all. It was a passive aggressive dig, “you’re the dumb folks and you ended up on top” because from dumb luck you “picked the right side of the coin.” He’s not angry he fell for it- he’s angry people dumber than him fared better. No science involved. No math, no data, no stats. Because even though he chose poorly, the math, science and data were on his side the entire time. He’s sticking with that false story. He’s one of the good guys after all. The bad guys won and he’ll concede that but nothing more. It’s not like we did the right thing by questioning Science.

And just like that, the anti-vaxxers who ended up on top are vilified again for their callous and unscientific victory. The framing is everything. You won, we lost. We’re nothing but evil “winners.” Because it’s all about, and only about, being right and the stupid anti-vaxxers got lucky.

Expand full comment
Jan 23Liked by Mathew Crawford

No, and thanks Matthew for not mailing this one in. There are at least two possibilities that come to mind when reading your attempts to get Adams to engage/listen/STFU.

1) He got paid to nudge/knows all about the psy op and was part of it being paid for it.

2) He is an incredibly sociopathic "intellectual" narcissist .

And I loved you threw in the wife. The minute he announced that, I knew he wasn't right in the head.

I thought to myself, how incredibly stupid to think that an attractive woman would marry him for anything other than


Like I said, I flunked statistics TWICE...but the probability she loved his "intelligence" or anything else about him other than his wallet or that she got paid to do so...??? Less than one in 5 million.

Expand full comment
Jan 23Liked by Mathew Crawford

Matthew, right as rain, as always. If I can add my one opinion to your analysis: Scott Adams' was doing the bidding of his masters in the intelligence community to lead the public to the "lucky coin toss" theory, and clearly hated doing the monologue (hence the dissonance between the words and the delivery in what was obviously a "hostage" video) because by doing so he had to publicly eat crow and diminish himself in the public eye, which to a guy like Adams, who served his bosses faithfully for 3 years, is anathema. ESPECIALLY, since he never believed the bullshit misdirection he was tweeting for 3 years, he was just doing it for his paycheck, and the added bonus of increasing his followers and readership. So.

Expand full comment

“Does this feel like a stage managed game to you? ” Yes.

Expand full comment

When I first saw Adams' mea culpa I took it a face value. Reading this, it appears that a mea maxima culpa was in order. I'm staying tuned.

The issue remains, what next? There is work for statisticians to ferret out the truths about vaccine death, morbidity and effect on fertility. Hope you are in it for the long haul. Need also for modeling how a world mostly populated by sick old farts of the first world, healthy Africans who never heard of Covid, and inbetweens from all over Asia is going to operate.

Expand full comment
Jan 23Liked by Mathew Crawford

I don’t consider my decision luck. I have a liberal arts degree in literature, sold pharmaceuticals early in my career and I am in software tech. In 2020 something in my gut said that the numbers were off. The cruise ship was the first red flag. When I heard they were using MRNA technology for vaccines I knew that it was a terrible idea. How? Back in 2014 I was casually following cancer research on various “cures”. Back then the MRNA “cures” we’re killing people in exactly the way they are now....suddenly and unexpectedly after treatment. They had to stop everything because it was a complete failure. I am nothing but curious. To this day I can’t believe I knew this most basic stuff and doctors and people like Malone didn’t. It was out there that the technology was a disaster. I made the right decision because I listened to my gut, paid attention to things I had read in the past, researched every single term and REFUSED to be bullied by every single family member, friend and colleague because “what could you possibly know.” It wasn’t a game. It was a nightmare being so positive and everyone around me treating me like I was idiot. I get how Mathew feels and it must be so much worse because he IS the smartest person in the room and he sacrificed everything and did all the work. Scott Adams concession speech offends me. Jerk.

Expand full comment
Jan 23Liked by Mathew Crawford

Scott Adams and others who try to play the "You were just lucky" card are just trying to rationalize and justify their own cult crazed, jab junkie mindset that allowed them to be manipulated into taking the shots.

For someone who fancies himself a "persuasion specialist" he really missed the boat badly.

If I was lucky it was that I learned a great strategy about 15 years ago when I heard an interview with Colonel Robert Bowman (a fascinating fellow in his own right). His position for dealing with authorities was to “Look for and PROVE the lies”. Once you can prove a lie you have all the information you need to make a decision. Why would you do what liars are telling you to do? If you have a spine YOU DON’T.

Like he said “You can speculate all day and it’s kind of fun but once you can prove a lie you have all the information you need to make an accurate decision”.

As far as covid goes in order of appearance that I was able to prove even with limited resources that I have access to:

1) Mar-May 2020: Embellishing the death counts. If it was real they wouldn’t need to do that.

2) Mar 2020 onward: Claiming that the PCR test was valid at cycle thresholds up to 45.

3) May 2020: The CDC admitted the IFR was 0.3%. After that no interventions were justified.

4) Apr 2020 onward: HCQ, Ivermectin and other early treatments blocked under false pretenses.

5) Oct 2020: 90% to 95% effective but they refuse to release the raw data without which we can’t confirm their claims.

6) May 2021: Pfizer’s own bio-distribution study was released by court order FOIA request in Japan and it clearly showed the lipid nano-particles did not stay at the injection site but went through your body and lodged in your organs including your brain. That is OMFG bad news.

Expand full comment

You have the patience of Job and commitment to the most propitious course of action that are extraordinary. I would have collapsed into "I can't deal with this [*curseword*] any longer," at least a year ago. We love ya Brother.

Expand full comment

Thanks a lot, I’ll be laughing about slippery penis shaped jello all day.

I know better than to do impulsive posts, I should have done more homework. I noticed Scott’s weak tea mea culpa but I really want to encourage those who got jabbed to come forward publicly and acknowledge it’s a mistake so we can start the accountability process. Perhaps the lack of authenticity in Scott’s non apology should have been a dead giveaway (ooo, definitely not a morbid pun there), yet I still fell for it.

Interestingly, Scott attributes his interest in hypnosis to his mother giving birth to one of his siblings while hypnotised, claiming she was aware during the process but didn’t feel any pain. Or is that the kind of story one tells?

You have a way of using all your skills and draw from all the nodes to form a bird’s eye view of the bigger picture. And then provide a couple of lenses with which to look through. It’s an invaluable lesson.

Expand full comment

Your sheer dedication to respond (almost) with a cool head over years-long-and-ongoing BS leaves me in awe. Keep going. The persistence tears me up.

Expand full comment
Jan 23Liked by Mathew Crawford

I used to listen to Scott until he came out in favor of Covid vax digital passports a year or so ago. That was my line in the sand. Back then Scott bragged all the time about his hypnosis training.

Expand full comment
Jan 23Liked by Mathew Crawford

Thanks, Mathew. That video gave me the creeps. What struck me as bizarre was how he framed it, as a contest, a coin flip. Having read Dilbert for decades, I can’t fathom how its creator could say all that stuff for the past two years with a straight face. Just doesn’t make sense. But it is ugly. It is indefensible. All he had to do was pay attention. He most certainly was aware of the issue of vaccine injury before this psy-op began.

Expand full comment