Scott Adams, author of Dilbert comic, admits defeat: "The anti-vaxxers clearly are the winners"

"All of my fancy analytics got me to a bad place; all of your heuristics ― don't trust these guys ― it's obvious, totally worked."

Note that according to Scott, the anti-vaxxers "won", but in many cases we also lost. See for example this tweet by Tyson Taylor:

"How have I won? My 37 year old friend died after the booster, my Dad got sick and ended up in hospital twice after the first shot, the whole world turned against me for 3 years and I’m left no longer trusting society or the people in my community. Yeah, feels great to ‘win’"
https://twitter.com/TysonTaylor69/status/1617117508137373696

Others rightfully point out that since none of the COVID injections conform to the rightful definition of a vaccine, refusing the injections does not make one an anti-vaxxer, regardless of how liberal or strict you define the term.

Instinct, heuristics (rules of thumb), observation/awareness, common sense (which is not common at all) somehow FEEL inferior, but they ARE actually superior to science, especially The Science™.

Some examples of basic heuristics that are relevant to the COVID jab:

A. The pharmaceutical companies have an asymmetric risk-reward which does not bode well for the injected at all. The pharmaceutical companies have a huge incentive to push the jabs, because mass injections will make them obscenely rich regardless if their product is necessary, safe or effective. If their product turns out to be harmful and/or ineffective/counter-effective, not only are they not liable for damages (unless you can prove fraud in court), but they may get even richer from the additional medication they will sell (possibly life-long) to the vaxx injured. So they have no disincentive to refrain from selling an unnecessary defective product.

B. The pharmaceutical companies have a strong informational advantage: They know a lot of things that the public can't know, partly because the public are not (medical) experts and partly because data and contracts have been kept confidential.

C. Pharmafia have a long track record proving that they care nothing about public health and everything about their bottom line.

D. Government institutions such as the FDA and CDC and institutions like WHO have proven that they do NOT work for public health, regardless of their ostensible mandate. Instead they are corrupt and sometimes also incompetent and rigid. They protect pharma interest, political interests, and personal interests (money, power, ideology, dogma, status, etc.).

E. It could be known that countless things did not add up when the authorities kept insisting on measures of mass destruction which did nothing to prevent the spread, when they prevented early treatment, when they ridiculed harmless prevention measures (clean air, optimal humidity, adequate vitamin D, healthy diet/lifestyle), when they threatened doctors from speaking out, when they insisted on injecting 7 billion people (even the low/no risk group), etc. We did not and could not have known each detail and we might not have been able to articulate everything perfectly, but we knew something was amiss.

However, we knew enough already in 2020 to justify the anti-vaxx position with "fancy analytics":

1. There was no severe all-cause excess mortality in 2020, especially when you consider the mild flu season of 2018-2019 (dry tinder effect) and the additional mortality caused by 24/7 fear porn and measures of mass destruction (such as social isolation).

2. It was clear from the very beginning who the risk groups were. Severely overweight, comorbid, old men were the very highest risk group. Even for these people, COVID was not necessarily a death sentence. Young, lean, healthy people had negligible statistical risk of severe disease, mortality and long COVID.

3. Natural immunity is durable, robust and significantly reduces transmission (so it also protects others). (This is if you believe in the existence of pathogenic viruses.)

4. The already very low risk for most can be significantly reduced to almost nothing with a combination of: (1) adequate clean air, (2) optimal humidity (40-60%), (3) vitamin D blood levels above 50 ng/ml, (4) early intensive combination therapy when sick, (5) healthy diet and lifestyle.

5. In the mean time, newer 'variants' such as omicold were significantly less virulent (disease causing). (Again, this is if you believe in the basic premise of the pseudo-science known as virology, which may or may not be right, but definitely stubbornly refuses to follow scientific mandates.)

6. Vaccination cannot work for the immunocompromised, because a trained weak immune system is still a weak immune system. However, you *can* (1) support a weak immune system with early intensive combination therapy, (2) strengthen the immune system (with healthy diet and lifestyle), and (3) unburden the immune system with a healthy environment (clean air and optimal humidity).

7. An injected vaccine can never significantly reduce transmission of a respiratory pathogen, because the immune system of the airways and gut is completely separate from the immune system of the tissues. If you want to reduce transmission of a respiratory pathogen via vaccination, an oral vaccine is strictly required.

8. Mass vaccination with a non-sterilizing, non-robust vaccine (susceptible to variants) combined with a fast-mutating pathogen is guaranteed to cause escape mutants. This is the vaccine equivalent of antibiotic resistance. The solution to this is to use as LITTLE of the vaccine as possible, not as MUCH as possible.

9. Despite much effort, no one ever succeeded in making a safe and effective vaccine against corona viruses. The vaccine candidates that were tested only made the outcomes significantly worse.

In summary, we knew even in 2020 that mass vaccination was unnecessary, even for the high risk group and especially for the low risk group, because (1) the risk was low to begin with, (2) the risk had gotten even lower in the mean time, (3) there was a known, harmless, highly effective integral protocol with positive side-effects to reduce the risk to near-zero.

Since the risk was already so low, the absolute benefit of the jab could only be extremely low. However, the known and potential risks of this barely tested experimental injection based on a genetic technology never used in humans at scale before, are unlimited and almost certainly higher. Said differently, a thorough risk-reward analysis clearly showed that NOT vaccinating was almost certainly the best option from a MEDICAL perspective.

NB: How to deal with coercion and exclusion (i.e. non-medical analysis) is a whole different discussion.

New information that became available daily after the start of the 'vaccine' roll-out continued to add proof that the anti-vaxx position was right.

Regardless of whether you come to a position using instinct, heuristics, observation, logic, common sense, "fancy analytics" or combination of these, the anti-vaxx position was the only right conclusion.

SOURCE

This is the source of this short compilation:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/C41GCgyG4mI/

This is probably the whole video from which this compilation was taken:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/O1uEAgeiJUw/