Clott Adams has apparently recanted -- well, sort of.
Note the quote though: "The anti-vaxxers clearly won."
Naw, he hasn't recanted. He's still calling the ones who "won" by pejoratives, intentionally-so.
I argue that he's just pissed off that he may be fucked and there's nothing he can do about it, that the VSAFE data which the CDC deliberately refused to release until they were sued (showing a seven percent serious adverse event rate, which incidentally matches roughly with what Rasmussen polled at and therefore can't be called "doctored") only catches the immediate bad things, so it therefore must understate the harms by some amount since that which hasn't happened yet is obviously unknowable and the premise of having a one-in-14 or worse Sword of Damocles hanging over your head tends to produce a crap-ton of anxiety and is certainly not implicated in promoting deep, restorative sleep.
One who goes to the gallows while calling the person who caught him by pejorative labels instead of contritely admitting "I did an evil thing, those who caught me did a righteous thing, for my evil act I deserve just punishment and accept it humbly, realizing that all I have left is to supplicate myself before St. Peter" deserve nothing but permanent derision.
They're not admitting anything except that they were caught and are pissed off that they were caught and thus can no longer hide behind obfuscation and bullshit.
Wake me up when any of these people actually exhibit something that could reasonably be called contrition. I have an entire list of said people who were formerly in my orbit that I wouldn't spit on if they were on fire.
NOT ONE PERSON HAS APPROACHED ME AND ACTUALLY APOLOGIZED, AND SCOTT IS CERTAINLY NOT THE FIRST.
Scott could have instead apologized for the "anti-vaxxer" pejorative and publicly listed every person who he blocked for same while unblocking them and asking (but not expecting) forgiveness. I know very few people who refused the jab and viewed their decision as anything other than a risk:benefit calculation which, by the own determination and metric, fell on the "more risk than benefit" side. As it turned out by the data even from the coroner in NYC or the CDC themselves only the very old AND seriously morbid -- their risk of death from infection was approximately five percent -- had any possibility of benefit outweighing harm.
Calling someone a name because their calculation differs from yours when neither of you can conclusively prove your calculation is correct for any individual case is malicious -- every time, without exception, period.
Indeed such a question is always objectively reasonable given that drug companies have repeatedly been caught gaming said trials, have paid billions in fines yet not one of said persons has ever gone to prison or been executed for it and thus as soon as you find such statistical holes, never mind a mechanism of serious harm you're crazy to believe anything they tell you in regard to that until and unless that risk has been run to the ground. This very same BS was run with Vioxx (killed 60,000 and was ultimately withdrawn) and Gardisil (only protected against one of the HPV strains, has a potential to cause Guillain-Barre that can cripple or kill, the disease is sexually transmitted thus in virtually every case is a consequence of a consensual adult act never mind pushing it on boys when it carried zero benefit in reducing their risk of cervical cancer for obvious reasons yet they too might get hit with serious systemic harm.)
Said mechanism of serious potential harm was known before the shots were rolled out and was intentionally swept under the rug. That the original three month trials in the fall of 2020 had more deaths in the treatment than the placebo arm was known and again intentionally swept under the rug as "not statistically meaningful." That this was intentionally ignored instead of being publicly and widely exposed and debated including the mechanism by which severe and fatal harm could occur was proved in the early summer of 2021 when said study was peer-reviewed before mandates and that the specific mechanism of said potential harm was known in December of 2020 and intentionally buried was also clear at that point because said study was published as a pre-print at that time.
I wrote on it at the time and it cemented for me what was up until that point a clear and obvious fact: You can't know what takes time to show up until the time passes, and the reason it takes 10+ years to qualify these sort of therapies in an honest system is that you can't know what will happen in 10 years until ten years passes unless you possess a time machine.
The entire reason that attempting to use "vaccination" (even if it does work, and in this case time has proved it doesn't) against an emerging pathogen is stupid is that it is not possible to qualify the countermeasure in terms of both positive and negative effect over time. You therefore are demanding that the public accept unknown and unknowable risks in trade for an unknown and unknowable degree of protection over an unknown period of time.
While making such a proposed countermeasure available with all the data on the table for individual assessment upon each person's individual circumstance is a rational thing to do in the face of an emergent biological threat to advocate that others do so, to promote it, to obfuscate any of the possible alternatives, to in any way suppress anecdotes or data on the harms or otherwise try to sway others is a serious moral, ethical and in fact damn well ought to be a criminal violation and, if it results in deaths (and in this case it did) you should hang for it particularly when you are proved wrong and refuse to apologize.