It's Optimistic, But Is It Rational?
Oh no, not Matt. One of my favourite climate sceptical thinkers has succumbed to the Cult of the Vackseen. What can I say? I'm deeply disappointed and disillusioned. Even if not always agreeing with Matt, I've defended his way of thinking against attacks from the more hysterical members of the Climate Cult, as here. I've respected his rationalism, even if not always sharing his optimism. But what have we got here?
Matt is a scientist. Where is his rationale for getting boosted? Where is his rationale and evidence to justify getting boosted with a totally different 'vaccine' from his first two jabs? Which manufacturer is he going to blame if it turns out that the intense reaction he suffered is the start of something more ominous? Is he healthy? I presume so. So why would he even contemplate getting 'boosted' when the advice from the WHO is that they are not recommended for healthy adults?
He's written lots about the lab origin of the original Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 virus and believes that the furin cleavage site on the spike protein was modified via gain of function research, effectively making it a man-made bioweapon. Matt just admitted that he had a third dose of mRNA 'vaccine' this time, which tells his cells to manufacture these man-made spike proteins in their trillions and Moderna has three times the mRNA of Pfizer even, so it generates a lot of toxic, hyper-inflammatory antigens - and he wonders why the extraordinarily intense fever? Just the jab working - he hopes.
That's optimism for you, but it ain't rational. Yet another sceptic bites the dust.