Recently, Biden was announced to have (likely terminal) metastatic prostate cancer. Scott Adams took that moment to announce that he did as well and that:
• Despite being a longtime critic of Biden, he deeply empathized with Biden’s plight and hoped people could show both him and Biden kindness rather than hate. He also noted he’d delayed announcing his cancer to avoid dealing with online hate and that “people are really cruel…and are going to say it’s because I got the COVID shot—there’s no indication that that makes a difference.”
• The pain from his cancer is intolerable; being on high doses of pain killers has turned him into a zombie, he now needs a walker, and he’s had to reduce his podcasts.
Cancer and the New Bio...
Best Price: $13.52
Buy New $18.07
(as of 03:15 UTC - Details)
• He tried ivermectin and febendazole and was hopeful it would work, but it did not, and he does not want any more medical advice, nor does he want to discuss any of his cancer’s clinical history; rather he just wants to continue his podcast until his life ends.
• Because of his pain and the futility of his condition, he is deeply grateful that California allows medically assisted suicide, and he expects to be dead by the summer.
• He has often been able to visually see his future (e.g., what his future house would look like), but what he sees in the future is simply “black” so he knows he is going to die.
Note: during my life, I’ve met numerous people who had an uncanny ability to predict future events, all of whom shared that it was in part due to some degree of “psychic” foresight.
Since Scott Adams’ experience encapsulates an unfortunate but very real facet of the cancer experience, I edited his recent podcast down to just those parts:
As many know of Adams (Trump even repeatedly called him to offer support), his announcement and the bleakness surrounding it profoundly disturbed the online community and many of his previous critics, out of empathy for Scott stopped attacking him. I’ve since received many requests to comment on specific facets of it (e.g., fenbendazole and ivermectin or what’s causing these turbo cancers).
In this article, I will cover each of these and provide some context as to why I’ve taken a different approach than others when writing about cancer.
Facts Don’t Matter, Persuasion is Everything
For most of my life, the presidential election has always followed one of two courses:
• Someone skilled at influencing the public (e.g., Reagan, Clinton, or Obama) is supported by the media and wins.
• The media builds up a marginal candidate and tears down their competitors (including popular ones with populist positions) and by having everyone collapse around the chosen nominee, makes the marginal candidate appear much better than they were at the start.
When the first Republican presidential debate happened in August 2015, Trump’s odds of winning the presidency were around 1%, and most assumed he’d joined the race as a publicity stunt. As I watched the first presidential debate, I realized that:
• The 2016 primary had been set up to have all the candidates collapse around Jeb Bush so that he could be elevated to run against Hillary.
• Trump was by far the strongest candidate running, and he was also espousing populist positions that the electorate wanted.
• Based on his answer to the Rosie O’Donnell question, Trump had a degree of verbal intelligence that made him able to withstand the kill shots the media normally used to eliminate unwanted candidates.
• If Trump went after Jeb Bush, he could likely steal his spot and collapse the nomination around him.
So once the debate ended, I checked on his betting odds, saw they were way too low, and told my friends who make these types of investments that those margins would disappear in the next few days once the market caught up and recognized Trump had a realistic chance of winning.
Around the same time, Scott Adams began posting that Trump had a realistic shot of becoming president (specifically, on July 2nd he said he didn’t support Trump but he also did not support the way he was being attacked by the media, on August 5th he said there was a viable but improbable path for him to become president, on August 24th he said Trump had a more effective way to persuade the electorate than Bush, and by August 28th said Trump would win by a large margin). Since he was one of the earliest contrarian voices to say that (e.g., on August 28th another prominent pollster had given Trump a 2% chance of the GOP nomination), Adams rapidly built a following that expanded on these themes and has now grown to over a million Twitter followers.
Scott’s central message was that since he had worked as a hypnotist, he believed facts are largely irrelevant for shifting people’s opinions, and rather how they are conveyed is what matters (which to a large degree I believe is true—although I take a different approach to reaching people than Scott). In turn, Scott repeatedly identified how Trump was using persuasive messaging when sharing his talking points (e.g., his words contained poignant visual metaphors), and blended that into content creation revolving around how persuasive language and the human tendency to filter out what they don’t want to see underlies much of what happens in society.
Because of this focus, he used his framework to analyze the correct decision regarding vaccination. In the first half of 2021, he shared that vaccination had no risks, potentially protected you from long COVID-19, gave you back your freedom, would create herd immunity to COVID-19, and to varying extents belittled people who chose not to vaccinate—all of which offended many of his followers and gradually led to him being nicknamed “Clot Adams.”
Later, in January 2023, to his credit, he posted a video admitting he was wrong and the antivaxxers were entirely correct. However, framed the decision to not vaccinate as being due to one’s “luck” of habitually not trusting the government and that being correct in this one instance, rather than one of intelligence, as all the data at the time had shown vaccination to be the correct choice and every intelligent person (Adams included) who correctly analyzed that data had concluded vaccinating was the proper choice.
Given that this wasn’t entirely true (e.g., a large amount of censored data showed otherwise, historical precedent shows the US government always lies about dangerous vaccines, and many of the arguments for the vaccine didn’t make logical sense), many were understandably offended by this.
Note: another prominent online author, Emily Oster, used similar logic in a highly controversial October 2022 plea for COVID amnesty in the Atlantic.
In parallel, since the COVID vaccine has such a high rate of injuries, many prominent individuals were injured by them in a manner that could not be covered up, including many political leaders (e.g., 4 of the 48 Democrat senators had severe brain injuries specifically linked to the vaccines). All of them had promoted the vaccine, and remarkably, these severe injuries did not change their stance on the vaccine (even in the case of one Democrat Congressman who had his 17 year old daughter die suddenly from cardiac arrest).
In the midst of all this insanity, Robert Malone advocated for explaining it through Mattias Desmet’s mass formation hypothesis, which stated that under the right conditions, malignant crowd consciousnesses can take over groups of people which cause them to do completely insane and horrific things, and that the group will be incredibly resistant to any external feedback which suggesting stopping it. One of the less appreciated facets of this theory is that mass formations will inevitably die off (as they are self-consuming). Once they conclude and the insanity around them dissipates, history judges their proponents harshly.
Note: a strong case can be made that Biden suffered rapidly accelerating dementia following COVID vaccination. Since he mandated the vaccines and demonized anyone opposed to them, that is now his “legacy,” and both his political collapse and death will most likely be looked back on as yet another consequence of his horrendous decision to push the vaccines.
Early Red Flags
Given what had happened with the 1976 Swine Flu (where a “safe” vaccine the government knew was dangerous was rushed to market so it would reach America “in time” and then injured many), at the end of 2019, I was worried something similar would happen with COVID. As such, I spent a lot of time looking for ways to treat the virus so people I knew would not be forced to choose between a risky vaccine and the risk of dying from COVID.
In December of 2020, (still unidentified) hackers accessed Europe’s FDA (the EMA) and leaked some of the EMA’s regulatory documents on Pfizer’s vaccine to both the dark web and journalists. Since I was concerned about the vaccine and had a background in drug research, I read through them in detail and was left with the impression that:
• Pfizer consistently chose the available option (e.g., for its lipid nanoparticles) that was most likely to produce a viable product rather than what would produce a safe one.
• Despite going out of their way to green light the vaccines, drug regulators still raised numerous clear issues with the vaccines (e.g., fragmented rather than compete mRNA being in the vaccines or COVID rapidly becoming resistant to the vaccine), which subsequently were never publicly mentioned and to the best of my knowledge were never solved prior the vaccines hitting the market.
• Pfizer was allowed to skip a variety of critical safety studies that should have been conducted before the drugs hit the market. These included testing for genetic toxicity, cancer, impairing fertility, and autoimmune disorders—despite those being amongst the greatest concerns for this experimental gene therapy (e.g., many had pointed out the vaccines had a high risk of causing autoimmune disorders and much of this testing is typically required for gene therapies).
Note: in the EMA documents, the WHO’s 2005 position was that lipids and RNA (the vaccine’s components) were “not expected” to have genotoxicity or carcinogenicity and hence did not need to be tested for (despite regulators also noting that a component of the lipid nanoparticle was a known carcinogen). Likewise, Pfizer’s current FDA label admits that genotoxicity and carcinogenicity were never tested for.
I hence predicted that many of these issues would come to pass, and that it was quite likely many of them had been identified during clinical studies but were not reported to regulators, as “plausible deniability” of knowledge of those side effects was the only viable way to get the vaccines approved.
Cancer: The Metabolic ...
Best Price: $6.06
Buy New $12.69
(as of 04:12 UTC - Details)
As such, I warned everyone I knew that the COVID vaccines might initially appear safe, but there were serious risks of long-term side effects that would take time to show up (particularly since something very similar had recently happened with the HPV vaccine). However, the moment the vaccine hit the market, I was astonished to discover that I’d greatly underestimated its toxicity and was seeing numerous patients each day who’d developed significant reactions to the vaccine they’d never experienced before. Likewise, people from around the country had begun reaching out to me to ask if the vaccine could cause you to “die suddenly” as this had recently happened to their relative (e.g., from a stroke or heart attack).
Given how much more severe the reactions were than what I’d expected, I realized the chronic issues would most likely exceed the worst case scenario I’d previously envisioned and suspected the EMA leaks rather than being hacked, came from an honest regulator who was alarmed by the gross violation of regulatory standards and what was being pushed through (but was powerless to stop it).
Note: similar in America, whistleblowers, internal Zoom recordings, and documents obtained by Senator Johnson reveal that FDA and CDC officials were fully aware of the potential dangers associated with the COVID-19 vaccines. Despite this, oncologist Dr. Peter Marks, the FDA official overseeing all vaccine-related matters, repeatedly slow-walked concerns raised by the vaccine-injured—offering empathy alongside continual excuses to delay acknowledging injuries (that were backed by credible data). He also removed two of the FDA’s top vaccine scientists who had expressed concern over the rushed approval process, discouraged the CDC from issuing even basic safety guidance (e.g., advising children with vaccine-induced myocarditis to temporarily avoid sports to reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death), and at a private conference, dismissed those questioning vaccine safety—including injured individuals he publicly claimed to empathize with—as irrational and not worth engaging.
