On 2/26/2022 2:53 AM, Chris wrote:
> RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 2022, sms wrote
>> (in article<news:sv3ktf$shc$1@dont-email.me>):
>>
>>> No public officials has advocated for forced Covid-19 vaccinations. It
>>> is true that those that voluntarily choose to not get vaccinated often
>>> must face consequences for their refusal, in order to protect public health.
>>
>> How are the most common of those "consequences" you speak of not force?
>
> The same way a parking ticket is not force.

No, parking in a no parking zone, or having an expired meter, is
breaking a law, with a resultant fine.

Not getting vaccinated is not breaking any law, but it has consequences.

I think that a better analogy is going through TSA checkpoints.

These checkpoints are necessary because of crazy people that don't care
about the general population.

No one is forcing anyone to go through a TSA checkpoint, have their
carry-on bags x-rayed or searched, and having their body checked for
metal objects or their body scanned. It's totally voluntary. You just
can't ride on a commercial aircraft unless you submit. You can still
travel to your destination by some other means, a car, a bus, a train,
etc.. In most cases, the TSA checkpoints protect the general population,
the same as vaccines. Neither is perfect, but both do a pretty good job.

On 2/25/2022 11:05 PM, RonTheGuy wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2022, sms wrote
> (in article<news:svc045$1tnq$1@gioia.aioe.org>):
>
>> Because each person can choose whether or not to be subject to those
>> consequences.
>
> If you put your gun to someone's head and demand their wallet - to you -
> that's your choice and it's all fair as it's their choice to comply.
>
> You deny their civil rights at the end of a gun & called it their choice.
> With Covid almost gone, maybe you'll put your gun back into your pocket
> and leave the people alone to live without fear of your forced actions.

No civil rights are being violated.

No one is forced to get vaccinated. You just have to be willing to
accept the consequences.

You can't get on an airplane without submitting to your luggage being
searched and your body being scanned, but no one is forcing you to fly.

On 2/26/2022 3:52 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> Please underline the bit which says drugs initiate an immunological
> response that lasts months to years.
>
>> Given we already proved the CDC definition of a vaccine _omits_ how this new
>> drug works
>
> You've proved nothing.

If "Andy/Arlen/Harry" goes over to
<https://isoponline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Differences-on-drugs-and-vaccines.pdf>
and reads slides 17-21 then he could learn the differences between
vaccines and drugs.

However in a general sense, both vaccines and drugs are made from
similar components so it's not really unreasonable to confuse the two
and you could legitimately claim that a vaccine is a type of drug.

It would be more accurate to compare vaccines and medications; vaccines
are to prevent diseases, medications are to treat diseases.

In message <svddnm$k17$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 2/26/2022 3:52 AM, Chris wrote:

> <snip>

>> Please underline the bit which says drugs initiate an immunological
>> response that lasts months to years.
>>
>>> Given we already proved the CDC definition of a vaccine _omits_ how this new
>>> drug works
>>
>> You've proved nothing.

> If "Andy/Arlen/Harry" goes over to
> <https://isoponline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Differences-on-drugs-and-vaccines.pdf>
> and reads slides 17-21 then he could learn the differences between
> vaccines and drugs.

> However in a general sense, both vaccines and drugs are made from
> similar components

No they are not.

> so it's not really unreasonable to confuse the two

Yes, it really is.

> and you could legitimately claim that a vaccine is a type of drug.

Not without a great deal of ignorance, no.

A vaccine uses the infectious agent to byud immune responses in the
body, it is nothing at all like a drug that mitigates the result of an
infectious agent.

> It would be more accurate to compare vaccines and medications; vaccines
> are to prevent diseases, medications are to treat diseases.

Vaccines are to instill immunity to a disease by marshalling your body's
existing immune response system to detect the agent and act against it.
This is nothing at all like what medications do.

--
NON-FLAMMABLE IS NOT A CHALLENGE Bart chalkboard Ep. BABF13

sms wrote:

> However in a general sense, both vaccines and drugs are made from
> similar components so it's not really unreasonable to confuse the two
> and you could legitimately claim that a vaccine is a type of drug.

Adults will note that Steve equates "knowledge" with "confusion".
Steve: knowledge === confusion
Adults: knowledge === understanding

Steve is promoting a platform based purely on fear, emotion, & ignorance.
Hence, people with knowledge are a _danger_ to political people like Steve.

As Gavin Newsom said, *Democrats have no patience for intellectuals* who
bring up the point that PG&E caused fires are not a manifestation of global
warming, no matter how emotionally ignorant his arguments are.

> It would be more accurate to compare vaccines and medications; vaccines
> are to prevent diseases, medications are to treat diseases.

It's not that I am "confused", as I know what's in the shot far better than
does Steve (and likely I know far more than all of you, combined, know).

Adults will noticed, wacko Democrats like Steve make all their arguments
based on pure ignorant fear and emotions, so, to them, facts === confusion.

Chris wrote:

> <yawn>

You iKooks can never respond as an _adult_ would to facts you simply hate.

The reason you iKooks are not like normal people is basically
a. None of the iKooks has any education (most not even high school)
b. All of the iKooks are of low IQ (as evidenced by your response above)
c. Due to the above, iKooks own imaginary belief systems (like kids do).

The reason iKooks gravitate to Apple has nothing to do with iOS.
It's all about the _promises_ Apple marketing cleverly makes to them.

Hence all iKooks associate Apple products with their own self esteem.
Any fact that detracts from that self esteem is a _danger_ to iKooks.

Their first response, always, is to brazenly deny all facts about Apple.

If you tell a kindergarten kid the fact that Santa doesn't actually exist...
*He'll respond exactly as the iKooks always do*

Lewis wrote:

>> and you could legitimately claim that a vaccine is a type of drug.
>
> Not without a great deal of ignorance, no.

To the iKooks, "facts === ignorance"

Here is a fact:
<https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/drug>
"Any substance (other than food) that is used to prevent, diagnose,
treat, or relieve symptoms of a disease or abnormal condition."

> A vaccine uses the infectious agent to byud immune responses in the
> body, it is nothing at all like a drug that mitigates the result of an
> infectious agent.

*I wonder how many of you notice the glaring flaw in Lewis' argument?*
I do.

You likely don't.
Which proves you are ignorant.

The glaring flaw in Lewis' argument is _exactly_ why this new drug does
_not_ meet even the CDC's own definition of what a vaccine is (specifically
_how_ it works).

I claim that if you don't see that flaw in Lewis' argument instantly,
then you don't own the adult comprehensive skills to claim I'm "confused".

>> It would be more accurate to compare vaccines and medications; vaccines
>> are to prevent diseases, medications are to treat diseases.
>
> Vaccines are to instill immunity to a disease by marshalling your body's
> existing immune response system to detect the agent and act against it.
> This is nothing at all like what medications do.

I posit that if you don't see the flaw in Lewis' argument instantly,
then you don't own the adult comprehensive skills to claim I'm "confused".
--
The problem with iKooks like Lewis isn't they never graduated high school,
which is fine, nor that they have a very low IQ, which is fine, but the
problem is that they don't _know_ these two facts and yet, they're so
confident in their total ignorance.

Chris wrote:

>> Given we already proved the CDC definition of a vaccine _omits_ how this new
>> drug works
>
> You've proved nothing.

The fact you must artificially _insert_ how this drug works in the human
body, which is clearly vastly and completely _different_ than _all_ the
known approved vaccines, is telling.

I can't "prove" anything to people like you, Chris, because:
a. You don't even have a 12th grade education, and,
b. You don't own a normal IQ (although your's is higher than Lewis'),
c. You hold strong belief systems based purely on fear & emotion.

If you can't comprehend what's _missing_ from the CDC vaccine definition,
the reason is in (a) and (b) above.

Proving something to you is no different than telling a kindergarten kid
that Santa Claus isn't real.

You'll _never_ be able to comprehend anything scientific.
--
The problem with iKooks isn't so much they're of low IQ but that they don't
know it - and hence - they hold extremely strong imaginary belief systems.

sms wrote:

> One thing that Andy/Arlen/Harry definitely should consider doing is to
> use credible sources. Basing his posts on things that he reads on
> right-wing Qanon websites and fake news sites like OAN or Fox News,

Do any of the _adults_ here notice how _afraid_ of facts, Steve is?
I haven't posted a single cite from those sources (which I don't read).
All my cites are from the FDC and the CDC and scientific journals.

Yet, Steve is so _afraid_ of those cites, that he claims the CDC, FDC, and
scientific journals are "Fox News".

Why is Steve so afraid of facts?
I know why.

Do you?
--
HINT:

Steve is promoting a platform based purely on fear, emotion, & ignorance.
Hence, people with knowledge are a _danger_ to political people like Steve.

As Gavin Newsom said, *Democrats have no patience for intellectuals* who
bring up the point that PG&E caused fires are not a manifestation of global
warming, no matter how emotionally ignorant his arguments are.

sms wrote:

> One thing that Andy/Arlen/Harry definitely should consider doing is to
> use credible sources. Basing his posts on things that he reads on
> right-wing Qanon websites and fake news sites like OAN or Fox News,

Do any of the _adults_ here notice how _afraid_ of facts, Steve is?
a. I haven't posted a single cite from those sources (not even one!).
b. All my cites are from the FDC and the CDC and scientific journals.

Yet, Steve claimed all the CDC, FDC, and journal articles are from Fox News.
Who on earth is _that_ stupid?

This next statement is very adult... so sit down and open your mind:
*Steve is so _afraid_ of those cites, that he falsely claims the
CDC, FDC, and scientific journals are "Fox News".

Why?
Why does Steve claim all scientific facts must be coming from Fox News?

Why?
Why is Steve so afraid of facts?
I know why.

Facts are a _danger_ to people like Steve.
A. Steve's _entire_ argument is based purely on ignorant emotional fears.
B. Worse, Steve is desperate to _control_ you (literally by forcing you).

Hence, any fact is a _danger_ to people like Steve

And more importantly, as Gavin Newsom said, intellectuals are a danger to
these people who are trying to control you.

I see this clearly from _everything_ Steve claims.
Do you?
--
HINT:

Steve is promoting a platform based purely on fear, emotion, & ignorance.
Hence, people with knowledge are a _danger_ to political people like Steve.

As Gavin Newsom said, *Democrats have no patience for intellectuals* who
bring up the point that PG&E caused fires are not a manifestation of global
warming, no matter how emotionally ignorant his arguments are.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 2/26/2022 3:52 AM, Chris wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Please underline the bit which says drugs initiate an immunological
>> response that lasts months to years.
>>
>>> Given we already proved the CDC definition of a vaccine _omits_ how this new
>>> drug works
>>
>> You've proved nothing.
>
> If "Andy/Arlen/Harry" goes over to
> <https://isoponline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Differences-on-drugs-and-vaccines.pdf>
> and reads slides 17-21 then he could learn the differences between
> vaccines and drugs.
>
> However in a general sense, both vaccines and drugs are made from
> similar components

Nope. Some excipients might be, but the active ingredients absolutely not.

> so it's not really unreasonable to confuse the two
> and you could legitimately claim that a vaccine is a type of drug.

Nope. Vaccines are immunogenic. Drugs are not.

> It would be more accurate to compare vaccines and medications; vaccines
> are to prevent diseases, medications are to treat diseases.

That's more confusing as medications don't really have a formal definition.
A medication could be practically anything.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>> Given we already proved the CDC definition of a vaccine _omits_ how this new
>>> drug works
>>
>> You've proved nothing.
>
> The fact you must artificially _insert_ how this drug works in the human
> body, which is clearly vastly and completely _different_ than _all_ the
> known approved vaccines, is telling.
>
> I can't "prove" anything

Correct. Precisely because you snip all relevant information.

I ask again please show the bit which says drugs are immunogenic.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> <yawn>
>
> You iKooks can never respond as an _adult_ would to facts you simply hate.
>

You're simply and constantly repeating yourself so are adding nothing of
value. Hence you're boring, now.

Chris wrote:

>> so it's not really unreasonable to confuse the two
>> and you could legitimately claim that a vaccine is a type of drug.
>
> Nope. Vaccines are immunogenic. Drugs are not.

My mother undergoes cancer chemotherapy using immunogenic drugs.
Are you saying she is taking a vaccine?

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 16:44:45 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>>
>>>> Given we already proved the CDC definition of a vaccine _omits_ how this new
>>>> drug works
>>>
>>> You've proved nothing.
>>
>> The fact you must artificially _insert_ how this drug works in the human
>> body, which is clearly vastly and completely _different_ than _all_ the
>> known approved vaccines, is telling.
>>
>> I can't "prove" anything
>
>Correct. Precisely because you snip all relevant information.
>
>I ask again please show the bit which says drugs are immunogenic.

I ask again, please killfile him and all other trolls.

On 2/26/2022 8:44 AM, Chris wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/26/2022 3:52 AM, Chris wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Please underline the bit which says drugs initiate an immunological
>>> response that lasts months to years.
>>>
>>>> Given we already proved the CDC definition of a vaccine _omits_ how this new
>>>> drug works
>>>
>>> You've proved nothing.
>>
>> If "Andy/Arlen/Harry" goes over to
>> <https://isoponline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Differences-on-drugs-and-vaccines.pdf>
>> and reads slides 17-21 then he could learn the differences between
>> vaccines and drugs.
>>
>> However in a general sense, both vaccines and drugs are made from
>> similar components
>
> Nope. Some excipients might be, but the active ingredients absolutely not.
>
>> so it's not really unreasonable to confuse the two
>> and you could legitimately claim that a vaccine is a type of drug.
>
> Nope. Vaccines are immunogenic. Drugs are not.

Go to:
<https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/development-approval-process-cber/vaccine-development-101#621a58a03ce7a>
then click on "FDA Oversight Continues After Approval." "It is important
to note that a vaccine is a drug."

Chris wrote:

> I ask again please show the bit which says drugs are immunogenic.

Before I shoot Chris' argument to hell with facts, he can be forgiven:
1. Chris clearly doesn't even have a 12th grade education, and,
2. His IQ, like that of all the iKooks, is definitely below average.
3. Hence, _all_ his belief systems are based on exactly _zero_ facts.

To wit:
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=immunogenic+drugs>
--
My point isn't that iKooks are undeducated or that they're of low IQ, but
that _because_ they're those things, they own kindergarten belief systems.

sms wrote:

> "It is important to note that a vaccine is a drug."

As an adult, *I _thank_ Steve for finding this cite*, and, even more so, for
Steve to post the cite (even as he said _I_ was the one who was confused).

Note that I could easily figure out that this shot was a drug simply by the
fact that I know how this shot works. Intelligence === Understanding

For the same reason of knowing how this shot works, I easily can figure out
that it does _not_ fit the CDC definition of a vaccine.

What you iKooks can't comprehend is there's something _missing_ from that
definition. And what's missing, is the entire reason people fear it.

*Which is _why_ it's missing.*

That is a _very adult_ observation that I'm sure you iKooks won't
comprehend.
--
You have to talk to the iKooks as if they're kindergarten children because
anything at the adult level of comprehension, they can't comprehend.

On 2022-02-26 9:23 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> I ask again please show the bit which says drugs are immunogenic.
>
> Before I shoot Chris' argument to hell with facts, he can be forgiven:
> 1. Chris clearly doesn't even have a 12th grade education, and, 2. His
> IQ, like that of all the iKooks, is definitely below average.
> 3. Hence, _all_ his belief systems are based on exactly _zero_ facts.
>
> To wit:
> <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=immunogenic+drugs>

Dude...

....when you're reduced to citing a bare internet search that just brings
up results that happen to contain two words...

....you're really showing how scared you are.

Nic <Nic@none.net> wrote
> Chris wrote

>>> so it's not really unreasonable to confuse the two and youcould
>>> legitimately claim that a vaccine is a type of drug.

>> Nope. Vaccines are immunogenic. Drugs are not.

> My mother undergoes cancer chemotherapy using immunogenic drugs.
> Are you saying she is taking a vaccine?

Cats mostly have tails. That doesn't mean that anything with a tail is a
cat.

Nic <Nic@none.net> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>> so it's not really unreasonable to confuse the two
>>> and you could legitimately claim that a vaccine is a type of drug.
>>
>> Nope. Vaccines are immunogenic. Drugs are not.
>
> My mother undergoes cancer chemotherapy using immunogenic drugs.
> Are you saying she is taking a vaccine?

Which drugs?

Gustav Omdahl wrote:

> We don't have so many incredibly stupid people as Andy Burnelli that
> don't understand the scientific method.

This new nym of Steve's, Gustav Omdahl, shows _zero_ facts from the CDC.
And yet, he calls anyone who actually knows the facts, "incredibly stupid".

Classic Steve.
a. Steve is _desperate_ to control people using emotional fear arguments
b. He's a wacko Democrat, very far to the left, who loves to control others
c. *They _love_ to control others by forcefully taking away your rights*

Steve wants to take away your right to make intelligent medical choices.
*Your Body* *_Steve's Choice_*

Never forget that is what this thread that Steve authored is all about.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 2/26/2022 8:44 AM, Chris wrote:
>> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/26/2022 3:52 AM, Chris wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Please underline the bit which says drugs initiate an immunological
>>>> response that lasts months to years.
>>>>
>>>>> Given we already proved the CDC definition of a vaccine _omits_ how this new
>>>>> drug works
>>>>
>>>> You've proved nothing.
>>>
>>> If "Andy/Arlen/Harry" goes over to
>>> <https://isoponline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Differences-on-drugs-and-vaccines.pdf>
>>> and reads slides 17-21 then he could learn the differences between
>>> vaccines and drugs.
>>>
>>> However in a general sense, both vaccines and drugs are made from
>>> similar components
>>
>> Nope. Some excipients might be, but the active ingredients absolutely not.
>>
>>> so it's not really unreasonable to confuse the two
>>> and you could legitimately claim that a vaccine is a type of drug.
>>
>> Nope. Vaccines are immunogenic. Drugs are not.
>
> Go to:
> <https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/development-approval-process-cber/vaccine-development-101#621a58a03ce7a>
>
> then click on "FDA Oversight Continues After Approval." "It is important
> to note that a vaccine is a drug."

That's very buried. How long did it take you to find that phrase? It
contradicts everything else the FDA say. Probably a mistake.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> I ask again please show the bit which says drugs are immunogenic.
>
> Before I shoot Chris' argument to hell with facts

[..]

>
> To wit:
> <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=immunogenic+drugs>

That doesn't shoot any argument to hell. Answer the question.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>> "It is important to note that a vaccine is a drug."
>
> As an adult, *I _thank_ Steve for finding this cite*, and, even more so, for
> Steve to post the cite (even as he said _I_ was the one who was confused).
>
> Note that I could easily figure out that this shot was a drug simply by the
> fact that I know how this shot works. Intelligence === Understanding

And yet you've claimed you're not intelligent. I take it then that you
don't understand. Makes sense.

> For the same reason of knowing how this shot works, I easily can figure out
> that it does _not_ fit the CDC definition of a vaccine.
>
> What you iKooks can't comprehend is there's something _missing_ from that
> definition. And what's missing, is the entire reason people fear it.
>
> *Which is _why_ it's missing.*
>
> That is a _very adult_ observation that I'm sure you iKooks won't
> comprehend.

That sentence is the opposite of "adult".