Scott Adams over on Twitter has been engaging with his detractors over his pro-mRNA stance. And while it’s mostly disingenuous trolling on his part, which is fine – it’s the Internet after all, he does bring up an interesting thought experiment:

“How did you ‘know’ the COVID vaccine was good / bad?”

It’s not a secret that I opted out of the mRNA treatment; I’m in a position where I couldn’t really be threatened into compliance so I consciously became part of the control group just to see what happened.

So, how did I come to this decision? It’s a really good question and forces some introspection.

First off, I’m not an ‘anti-vaxxer’ by any stretch of the imagination. I get my general vaccines, like Tetanus, from my doctor whenever it’s time. I get the current round of flu shots every other year (I skip a year to reduce my reliance). And I’ve routinely gotten the kitchen sink set whenever I travel out of the country…

I’m also not a media consumer. I don’t watch TV in general or the news specifically, so I’m forced to go find out and form my own opinions when important things crop up… This takes time, but it also prevents knee-jerk reactions on my part – and I’ve not really encountered anything that can’t be examined for a while before taking action.

So, what made the mRNA different?

Well, it was new technology – and I’m kinda into new technology – so I started to read up on it as I tend to do. And early on there were a lot of papers on the research leading up to the COVID version that didn’t have the best results, mostly because corona viruses in general are hard to pin down due to their propensity to mutate. And while that wasn’t a red flag in and of itself, it did get added to the dataset.

I’ve also been in various tech fields for nearly forty years now, and I have a pretty good grasp of how long it takes to go from ‘good idea’ to ‘safe and effective’, which tends to be exacerbated by how much of a fire drill the whole process is… In my opinion there were a lot of shortcuts being taken in the name of an emergency, which is the exact time you shouldn’t take shortcuts. And because of the emergency nature of the thing and a similar understanding of dangerous shortcuts by everyone involved, the EUA absolved everyone involved of any responsibility.

This was a pretty big red flag for me, but I was still undecided.

What really formed my opinion was the unprecedented coercion to get the shot… It raised a simple question; “If they have to force / bribe / guilt-trip people to take it, what am I missing?” – which redoubled my research.

I’m in my 50’s, so I’ve been around the block a few times – and I’ve never seen a state or federal government offer money to get a shot. I’ve also never seen people get fired for not getting a shot… And the harder the mRNA was pushed, the less I trusted the whole process.

Then came the logic problems; apparently if I didn’t get the mRNA shot I was putting people who did at risk – which is pretty much exactly how vaccines don’t work… And then mRNA efficacy went from Biden telling everyone that they’d not get sick if they got the shot to needing a booster, to needing a second booster, to needing boosters every year.

And then the folks who got the mRNA vaccine started to get sick – so they redefined vaccination…

So, to answer Scott’s question, my determination of good / bad wasn’t really an instant decision gate – it was more of a process that involved a lot of reading and asking questions mixed with some pattern recognition.

I currently figure my desire to methodically come up with my own opinions on things versus leaping to televised conclusions may have been a really good thing this time around. It makes up for all the times I missed a good stock market move because I spent too much time thinking about it. 🙂

Listening to "Images of You" by FM Attack