The Media is Awful About the Death of Scott Adams (Sargon)

Try to be nice when someone passes.



Whether or not you agreed with him as a social media commentator it's unfortunate he died. One lesson we should draw from his death is to reflect on his faulty line of reasoning when it came to science, as opposed to politics. 

He believed that the cancer that killed him was due to the mRNA 'vaccines' he took, an action he later conceded was a mistake. His interest was in persuasion and he took onboard ideas of authority and consensus when it came to being convinced the jabs were safe and effective. However, in science these are bankrupt, and potentially dangerous, ideas. In medicine the consensus opinion can be wrong, and with the mRNA jabs this was obviously so.

It's one thing to convince someone of something in terms of political and psychological argument and another thing to follow scientific principles. Statistics, and people in authority, can mislead. So when proper procedures are not followed (in fast tracking an experimental drug), and the data is skewed, or merely hidden, one should realise something is very wrong and to look further. Those who looked further realised that taking the mRNA shots carried a huge risk - it was an unproven technology with a history of failure marketed as 'safe and effective'. The simple fact of the matter is that there was no time to conduct proper safety tests, and the mechanism of action looked to be inherently dangerous. It's likely that Scott Adams paid for this oversight with his life, one of millions around the world.   

[Posted at the SpookyWeather2 blog, January 16, 2026.]