Imagine my surprise last Saturday morning…
…when I was listening to the morning Periscope of Scott Adams and heard Adams address me directly by name and decline my request to be interviewed by him.
Unlike Chuck Todd of Meet the Press, Adams actually said my name, and treated me with great respect.
In return, I wrote a letter to him, and posted a response on YouTube…
This is my video, and below it is the actual letter.
I’d like to thank you for directly addressing my request to be interviewed on your morning Periscope of July 25, 2020. As I’ve said before, I consider you to be America’s greatest public intellectual. I always find your commentary to be thought-provoking and challenging. The size of your enormous audience, the best looking and most intelligent group of free thinkers to be found on the internet, bears credit to your influence.
I genuinely think I can assist you in your long-expressed desire to be cancelled by the mainstream media. I’ve been booked to speak at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, only to have my talk cancelled because of protests, and have been banned from speaking about my books from the entire continent of Australia. Getting you cancelled from the entire internet should be a piece of cake.
If I might, I’d like to express some mild criticism of your reasoning for declining to interview me. Your stated reason, using the example of dueling documentaries on the question of whether Michael Jackson was a child-abuser, is not a good comparison. Each documentary you watched convinced you of their claim, and as a result you didn’t know what to think. The former pop singer could not be a child abuser, and yet innocent at the same time. However, Michael Jackson’s actions are of no continuing concern to the public as he is now dead. The issues I speak of are still very much alive.
What I’ve most appreciated in your morning Periscopes is how you are set out a plan of action for which opposing sides can both agree. Your argument for Generation IV nuclear power is a perfect example. Some people believe greenhouse gases to be a problem and others do not. However, both sides do agree that the extraction of fossil fuel is a polluting process, and once you have demonstrated safety and lower cost, both sides can support Generation IV nuclear energy, although for different reasons.
In that spirit I’d like to offer my solution to the vaccine issue.
My community believes vaccines to be causing enormous harm.
The mainstream media and the scientific and political establishment consider them to be a great good, or as I heard California State Senator, Richard Pan, once state, “as safe as sugar water.”
Both sides should then be able to agree that the 1986 National Childhood Vaccines Injury Act, establishing the so-called “Vaccine Court,” where claims of vaccine injury are adjudicated, should be abolished.
Vaccines would then return to the normal civil court system in the same manner as all other consumer products. Surely our children deserve the highest level of protection from our courts.
I will make this brief, but I’d like you to consider how the world looks from the perspective of our community. We saw a change in our children after a vaccination, the very same people who administered the shot claim it was fine, then when we start to research and find such unfair systems as the current “Vaccine Court,” we’re not even allowed into the public discussion.
People then tell us they’ll talk to us when we assemble the evidence so write a book with lots of footnotes (and in the case of my book PLAGUE OF CORRUPTION, endorsed by the Nobel Prize winner for isolation of the HIV virus), or make a compelling documentary, only to be told by the mainstream media to avoid it.
You always say, give it to me in a simple sentence, so let me sum up the three books I’ve written which total more than seven hundred and fifty pages and more than a thousand footnotes.
Vaccines and biologics carry the same risks as xeno-transplantation.
Xeno-transplantation involves the transfer of biological material from one species to another. Dormant viruses in the donor species may then wake up and cause harm in the recipient species. For example, when somebody receives a heart valve from a pig or cow (called tissue heart valves), the patient must then remain on strong immune-suppressant drugs. Every vaccine contains biological material from at least one or more different species.
I could not end this letter without mentioning one other perceived flaw in your thinking. You seem to believe that people like me, Dr. Judy Mikovits, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, or Robert Kennedy, Jr., don’t want to debate our critics. We’ve been trying to make that happen for more than fifteen years, but they keep declining.
I remain hopeful that vigorous and informed debate will yield truth.
You have always said that you consider yourself to have a great BS detector, and failing that you always look at whether the system being used will yield the expected results. I consider public health to be working under a faulty system where the parents of vaccine-injured children must face off against Department of Justice attorneys, as well as being pilloried in the press.
Your critiques of the press not giving us useful information are remarkably accurate. But when it comes to our community, or our scientists, the media suddenly becomes the unquestioned champion of truth. And this is at the same time you admit that Big Pharma controls the media because of what you saw going on in the hydroxy-chloroquine debate.
As I said before, I consider you to be America’s greatest public intellectual and you are contributing in so many spheres. You do not have to take on this challenge and I respect your decision to decline.
However, I don’t believe shrinking from a challenge is your brand. If you’d ever like to speak to me privately (and I promise I don’t bite or froth at the mouth about Q), you have my contact information. I would never publicly disclose those conversations and would keep them in the strictest confidence until I received permission from you.
Your humble servant,
Opinion by Kent Heckenlively, JD
Be sure to order Kent Heckenlively’s new book with Dr. Judy Mikovits, PLAGUE OF CORRUPTION from Amazon which you can do RIGHT NOW!
9 thoughts on “Dear Scott Adams . . .”
I would offer two possibilities he declined the interview:
1) You’re just a bridge way too far.
2) Since he knows you are an avid listener, publicly declining an interview might be purposeful to get under your skin.
I don’t listen to Scott, but he’s just big enough with an ego to match, even if he speaks some similar truths, that he has an arrogant asshole side. These are just judgements from a distance and could be inaccurate.
Kent, you were far too kind to Mr. Adams. By now no public commentator can claim ignorance of the well-litigated fact that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.” Refusing to consider that issue deprives any “court intellectual” of any claim to our respect.
Maybe last Saturday Scott was logged in, not as “Dilbert,” but as his “Pointy-haired Boss?”
THAT would explain a lot…
Booyah, Kent! That’s the way…
Well that surely told ol Scott his own flawed thinking was not up to par…. maybe he’d hesitate to decline again IF WE CAN GET THIS WHITE HOUSE PETITION FULL OF 100K SIGS…. to expect Trump to issue the order that there were will be no mandatoriness in the vaccines industry….
So far they have 31k sigs [on day 3] so 28 days to go [Aug 24th] to get the required rest [69k sigs]…….. just signed and it’s quick.. and easy………… https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/president-trump-sign-executive-order-protecting-persons-right-choose-and-refuse-vaccinations?fbclid=IwAR3szyG9tMwa4do9vt9dEd_LaNcuBxDpot6eC15X43D28xbcGYmjXQvHXU8
I am so disappointed in Scott Adams, but not surprised. Basically, he is a coward to not interview you.
Nice job, Kent. Clearly this is not the same as whether or not Michael Jackson was a kiddy-fiddler: that question is not so much a matter of degree. Not all adults are a threat to children, but some are. The hard part is determining whether an individual is or isn’t. HOW MUCH of a threat makes little difference to whether or not to keep them away from your kids.
The question with pharmaceuticals IS different. All pharmaceuticals carry risks and none are 100% effective. There are no known exceptions. So the challenge is to determine the DEGREE of effectiveness and the DEGREE of risk.
What Adams can’t ignore is the fact that the risks are not being properly evaluated because there is no effective reporting. And that healthy people have absolutely everything to lose by taking a faulty drug. So, the threshold of caution is much much higher.
Adams’ argument there appears to be ‘hear no argument, hear no information’ – because HE can’t tell which arguments are right and which are wrong – then, decide whether or not to receive the treatment. The trouble is, he is advocating abdication of responsibility, since not making these informed choices is to make an UNINFORMED choice by default.
He is using reason to argung in favour of not using reason – not a good use of ones faculties, I say.
Compared to that, the decision whether or not to let your kids sleep over at the mansion of an eccentric drug-using celebrity takes relatively little information. ie. don’t do it and you’ll be fine.
So, on the strength of what you say there, he’s letting himself down and you give him far too much credit.
Scott Adams may now be more afraid of Big Pharma which is Big Vaccine. I hope not. Seems like he could do his due diligence and at least have a private conversation. Keep up the great work!
Boyd Haley wrote an interesting chapter in Vaccine Epidemic where he characterizes Vaccine Court as a “kangaroo court.”
An important premise of Vaccine Court is the myth that a $.75 excise tax on every vaccine will provide a fund sufficiently large to compensate for all vaccine damage. I think an important motive for the scientific misconduct documented by William Thompson and the legal misconduct documented by Andrew Zimmerman was to preserve the pernicious myth.