verbatim.

Pfizer Shot Is Far Less Effective in 5- to 11-Year-Olds Than in Older Kids, New Data Show
<https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/health/pfizer-vaccine-kids.html>

"*The vaccine offered almost no protection against infection*,
even just a month after full vaccination."

"according to a large new set of data collected by health officials
in New York State - a finding that has deep ramifications for these
children"

"It still prevents severe illness in the children,
but offers *virtually no protection against infection*,
even within a month after full immunization"

verbatim

On 2022-02-28 3:24 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> verbatim.
>
> Pfizer Shot Is Far Less Effective in 5- to 11-Year-Olds Than in Older
> Kids, New Data Show
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/health/pfizer-vaccine-kids.html>
>
>  "*The vaccine offered almost no protection against infection*,  even
> just a month after full vaccination."
>
>  "according to a large new set of data collected by health officials
> in New York State - a finding that has deep ramifications for these
>   children"
>
> "It still prevents severe illness in the children,  but offers
> *virtually no protection against infection*,  even within a month after
> full immunization"
>
> verbatim

And the New York Times is the foremost authority on immunology, are they?

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-28 3:24 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> verbatim.
>>
>> Pfizer Shot Is Far Less Effective in 5- to 11-Year-Olds Than in Older
>> Kids, New Data Show
>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/health/pfizer-vaccine-kids.html>
>>
>> '"*The vaccine offered almost no protection against infection*, 'even
>> just a month after full vaccination."
>>
>> '"according to a large new set of data collected by health officials
>> in New York State - a finding that has deep ramifications for these
>> ' children"
>>
>> "It still prevents severe illness in the children, 'but offers
>> *virtually no protection against infection*, 'even within a month after
>> full immunization"
>>
>> verbatim
>
> And the New York Times is the foremost authority on immunology, are they?

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.25.22271454v1

Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine among children 5-11 and 12-17 years in
New York after the Emergence of the Omicron Variant

Vajeera Dorabawila, Dina Hoefer, Ursula E Bauer, Mary Bassett, Emily
Lutterloh, Eli Rosenberg
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.25.22271454

This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what
does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be
evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

Abstract
Importance: There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of the BNT162b2
vaccine for children, particularly those 5-11 years and after the Omicron
variant's emergence. Objective: To estimate BNT162b2 vaccine effectiveness
against COVID cases and hospitalizations among children 5-11 years and 12-17
years during December, 2021 and January, 2022. Design: Analyses of cohorts
constructed from linked statewide immunization, laboratory testing, and
hospitalization databases. Setting/Participants: New York State children
5-17 years. Main outcomes/measures: New laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases
and hospitalizations. Comparisons were made using the incidence rate ratio
(IRR), comparing outcomes by vaccination status, and estimated vaccine
effectiveness (VE: 1-[1/IRR]). Results: From December 13, 2021 to January
30, 2022, among 852,384 fully-vaccinated children 12-17 years and 365,502
children 5-11 years, VE against cases declined from 66% (95% CI: 64%, 67%)
to 51% (95% CI: 48%, 54%) for those 12-17 years and from 68% (95% CI: 63%,
72%) to 12% (95% CI: 6%, 16%) for those 5-11 years. During the January 24-30
week, VE for children 11 years was 11% (95%CI -3%, 23%) and for those age 12
was 67% (95% CI: 62%, 71%). VE against hospitalization declined changed from
85% (95% CI: 63%, 95%) to 73% (95% CI: 53%, 87%) for children 12-17 years,
and from 100% (95% CI: -189%, 100%) to 48% (95% CI: -12%, 75%) for those
5-11 years. Among children newly fully-vaccinated December 13, 2021 to
January 2, 2022, VE against cases within two weeks of full vaccination for
children 12-17 years was 76% (95% CI: 71%, 81%) and by 28-34 days it was 56%
(95% CI: 43%, 63%). For children 5-11, VE against cases declined from 65%
(95% CI: 62%, 68%) to 12% (95% CI: 8%, 16%) by 28-34 days. Conclusions and
Relevance: In the Omicron era, the effectiveness against cases of BNT162b2
declined rapidly for children, particularly those 5-11 years. However,
vaccination of children 5-11 years was protective against severe disease and
is recommended. These results highlight the potential need to study
alternative vaccine dosing for children and the continued importance layered
protections, including mask wearing, to prevent infection and transmission.

On 2/28/2022 6:15 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-02-28 3:24 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> verbatim.
>>
>> Pfizer Shot Is Far Less Effective in 5- to 11-Year-Olds Than in Older
>> Kids, New Data Show
>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/health/pfizer-vaccine-kids.html>
>>
>>   "*The vaccine offered almost no protection against infection*,  even
>> just a month after full vaccination."
>>
>>   "according to a large new set of data collected by health officials
>> in New York State - a finding that has deep ramifications for these
>>    children"
>>
>> "It still prevents severe illness in the children,  but offers
>> *virtually no protection against infection*,  even within a month
>> after full immunization"
>>
>> verbatim
>
> And the New York Times is the foremost authority on immunology, are they?

Well, it did indicate "It still prevents severe illness in the children"
and "protection against hospitalization is still strong".

On the other hand, Andy/Arlen's post is anything but verbatim.

From Merriam-Webster:
verbatim adjective
Definition of verbatim (Entry 2 of 2)
: being in or following the exact words : WORD-FOR-WORD
a verbatim report of the meeting

joe wrote:

> On the other hand, Andy/Arlen's post is anything but verbatim.

You iKooks are incredibly ignorant about everything.
You argue about what's not even close to the important point.

Why?
You _hate_ all facts.

Why?
Simply because facts don't fit into your imaginary belief systems.

1. Any adult would click on the link (that's _why_ it's there!)
2. I quoted exactly - I don't have to copy the entire article

These are salient observations:
a. We already knew the wackos like Steve want to _force_ kids to get shot.
b. And, we know that kids have about a 99.9998% chance of surviving.
c. And, now we see evidence that the drug doesn't even prevent infection.

Forcing kids to be injected with a potent new drug is what the wackos want.
--
I don't care that iKooks are uneducated & of low IQ & low self esteem, but
_because_ of those things, they own completely imaginary belief systems.

On 2022-03-01 00:24, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> verbatim.
>
> Pfizer Shot Is Far Less Effective in 5- to 11-Year-Olds Than in Older
> Kids, New Data Show

And that is related to phones, how...?

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2022-03-01 00:55:27 +0000, Nic said:
> Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-02-28 3:24 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>> verbatim.
>>>
>>> Pfizer Shot Is Far Less Effective in 5- to 11-Year-Olds Than in Older
>>> Kids, New Data Show
>>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/health/pfizer-vaccine-kids.html>
>>>
>>> '"*The vaccine offered almost no protection against infection*, 'even
>>> just a month after full vaccination."
>>>
>>> '"according to a large new set of data collected by health officials
>>> in New York State - a finding that has deep ramifications for these
>>> ' children"
>>>
>>> "It still prevents severe illness in the children, 'but offers
>>> *virtually no protection against infection*, 'even within a month after
>>> full immunization"
>>>
>>> verbatim
>>
>> And the New York Times is the foremost authority on immunology, are they?
>
> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.25.22271454v1
>
> Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine among children 5-11 and 12-17 years in
> New York after the Emergence of the Omicron Variant
>
> Vajeera Dorabawila, Dina Hoefer, Ursula E Bauer, Mary Bassett, Emily
> Lutterloh, Eli Rosenberg
> doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.25.22271454
>
> This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what
> does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be
> evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.
>
> Abstract
> Importance: There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of the BNT162b2
> vaccine for children, particularly those 5-11 years and after the Omicron
> variant's emergence. Objective: To estimate BNT162b2 vaccine effectiveness
> against COVID cases and hospitalizations among children 5-11 years and 12-17
> years during December, 2021 and January, 2022. Design: Analyses of cohorts
> constructed from linked statewide immunization, laboratory testing, and
> hospitalization databases. Setting/Participants: New York State children
> 5-17 years. Main outcomes/measures: New laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases
> and hospitalizations. Comparisons were made using the incidence rate ratio
> (IRR), comparing outcomes by vaccination status, and estimated vaccine
> effectiveness (VE: 1-[1/IRR]). Results: From December 13, 2021 to January
> 30, 2022, among 852,384 fully-vaccinated children 12-17 years and 365,502
> children 5-11 years, VE against cases declined from 66% (95% CI: 64%, 67%)
> to 51% (95% CI: 48%, 54%) for those 12-17 years and from 68% (95% CI: 63%,
> 72%) to 12% (95% CI: 6%, 16%) for those 5-11 years. During the January 24-30
> week, VE for children 11 years was 11% (95%CI -3%, 23%) and for those age 12
> was 67% (95% CI: 62%, 71%). VE against hospitalization declined changed from
> 85% (95% CI: 63%, 95%) to 73% (95% CI: 53%, 87%) for children 12-17 years,
> and from 100% (95% CI: -189%, 100%) to 48% (95% CI: -12%, 75%) for those
> 5-11 years. Among children newly fully-vaccinated December 13, 2021 to
> January 2, 2022, VE against cases within two weeks of full vaccination for
> children 12-17 years was 76% (95% CI: 71%, 81%) and by 28-34 days it was 56%
> (95% CI: 43%, 63%). For children 5-11, VE against cases declined from 65%
> (95% CI: 62%, 68%) to 12% (95% CI: 8%, 16%) by 28-34 days. Conclusions and
> Relevance: In the Omicron era, the effectiveness against cases of BNT162b2
> declined rapidly for children, particularly those 5-11 years. However,
> vaccination of children 5-11 years was protective against severe disease and
> is recommended. These results highlight the potential need to study
> alternative vaccine dosing for children and the continued importance layered
> protections, including mask wearing, to prevent infection and transmission.

A. "However, vaccination of children 5-11 years was protective
against severe disease and is recommended."

B. It is already well known that the vaccines lose efficiency
over time, as do many other vaccines (e.g. tetanus), which is
why you need boosters.

C. It is already well known that all the vaccines were less
effective againt Omicron variant for everyone. The Pfizer
vaccine is the best of them. There are newer versions of the
vaccines coming soon which are better for this variant (and
potentially any new variant).

D. This, and most other idiotic medical studies, are dangerous
and should never be released to the general public because
they simply get mis-used by the misinformation mongers and
other lunatics.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 23:24:36 +0000, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>verbatim.
>
> Pfizer Shot Is Far Less Effective in 5- to 11-Year-Olds Than in Older Kids, New Data Show
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/health/pfizer-vaccine-kids.html>
>
> "*The vaccine offered almost no protection against infection*,
> even just a month after full vaccination."
>
> "according to a large new set of data collected by health officials
> in New York State - a finding that has deep ramifications for these
> children"
>
> "It still prevents severe illness in the children,
> but offers *virtually no protection against infection*,
> even within a month after full immunization"
>
>verbatim

"“It’s disappointing, but not entirely surprising, given this is a
vaccine developed in response to an earlier variant,” said Eli
Rosenberg, deputy director for science at the New York State
Department of Health, who led the study."

The vaccine also has little effect in preventing other age groups
from catching the omicron variant. As with this study, it only
reduces symptoms and the likelihood of hospitalization.

RL

legg wrote:

> The vaccine also has little effect in preventing other age groups
> from catching the omicron variant. As with this study, it only
> reduces symptoms and the likelihood of hospitalization.

This is relevant to Steve's thread to these two newsgroups in that almost
everything claimed by people like Steve is based on pure emotional fears.

The fact remains that kids have almost a zero chance of dying from Covid.
(OK. It's 0.0002% which isn't 0, but it's "almost 0" for those who argue.)

And yet, wackos like Steve want to force novel drugs to be injected in them.

The novel drug doesn't even prevent infection all that much, in fact.
Still, wackos like Steve want to force novel drugs to be injected in them.

Their argument?
*They're afraid that the kids will infect them!*

Think about that.
a. The kids get infected either way (only perhaps not as bad).
b. So, they're _barely_ protecting themselves anyway.

Yet, wackos like Steve don't make any political move based on fact.
a. Only on ignorance
b. Fear
c. Emotion

No wonder Gavin Newsom said he had no patience for intellectuals.
Steve is exactly the same.

That's my point.
*I use facts to combat the fear-based arguments Steve promulgates*
--
I don't care that Steve is ignorant, filled with fear, and full of purely
emotional fact-free belief systems as long as he learns to stop trying to
take away my rights just so that _he_ can finally feel safe from people who
don't fall for his always-fear-mongering attempts at revoking rights.

On 2022-03-01 15:01:02 +0000, legg said:

> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 23:24:36 +0000, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> verbatim.
>>
>> Pfizer Shot Is Far Less Effective in 5- to 11-Year-Olds Than in Older
>> Kids, New Data Show
>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/health/pfizer-vaccine-kids.html>
>>
>> "*The vaccine offered almost no protection against infection*,
>> even just a month after full vaccination."
>>
>> "according to a large new set of data collected by health officials
>> in New York State - a finding that has deep ramifications for these
>> children"
>>
>> "It still prevents severe illness in the children,
>> but offers *virtually no protection against infection*,
>> even within a month after full immunization"
>>
>> verbatim
>
> "“It’s disappointing, but not entirely surprising, given this is a
> vaccine developed in response to an earlier variant,” said Eli
> Rosenberg, deputy director for science at the New York State
> Department of Health, who led the study."
>
> The vaccine also has little effect in preventing other age groups
> from catching the omicron variant. As with this study, it only
> reduces symptoms and the likelihood of hospitalization.

Reducing symptoms and the likelihood of hospitalisation (and death) was
the entire point of he vaccinations. They were never advertised by any
with a brain as completely stopping you from being infected.

Your Name wrote:

> Reducing symptoms and the likelihood of hospitalisation (and death) was
> the entire point of he vaccinations. They were never advertised by any
> with a brain as completely stopping you from being infected.

Don't tell it to me, tell it to the wackos who were complaining that other
people who didn't get the drug injected into them would infect _them_.

a. The kids have almost no danger
b. The kids gain almost no benefit
c. And yet, the wackos want to force the kids to have the drug injected

Why?
The wackos like Steve & Chris said it was to protect _them_.

And yet, the facts show it probably can't even do that.
--
I don't mind wackos being ignorant until and unless those wackos try to take
away all my rights because they are too fearful to make sound decisions.

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 10:22:14 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>On 2022-03-01 15:01:02 +0000, legg said:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 23:24:36 +0000, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> verbatim.
>>>
>>> Pfizer Shot Is Far Less Effective in 5- to 11-Year-Olds Than in Older
>>> Kids, New Data Show
>>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/health/pfizer-vaccine-kids.html>
>>>
>>> "*The vaccine offered almost no protection against infection*,
>>> even just a month after full vaccination."
>>>
>>> "according to a large new set of data collected by health officials
>>> in New York State - a finding that has deep ramifications for these
>>> children"
>>>
>>> "It still prevents severe illness in the children,
>>> but offers *virtually no protection against infection*,
>>> even within a month after full immunization"
>>>
>>> verbatim
>>
>> "“It’s disappointing, but not entirely surprising, given this is a
>> vaccine developed in response to an earlier variant,” said Eli
>> Rosenberg, deputy director for science at the New York State
>> Department of Health, who led the study."
>>
>> The vaccine also has little effect in preventing other age groups
>> from catching the omicron variant. As with this study, it only
>> reduces symptoms and the likelihood of hospitalization.
>
>Reducing symptoms and the likelihood of hospitalisation (and death) was
>the entire point of he vaccinations. They were never advertised by any
>with a brain as completely stopping you from being infected.

Actually, a properly configured flu vaccine allows the body to fight
off a pre-designated disease. You don't 'get' it.

Pfizer was >80% effective in doing this, pre-variant.

RL

On 2022-03-02 13:20:38 +0000, legg said:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 10:22:14 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
> wrote:
>> On 2022-03-01 15:01:02 +0000, legg said:
>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 23:24:36 +0000, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> verbatim.
>>>>
>>>> Pfizer Shot Is Far Less Effective in 5- to 11-Year-Olds Than in Older
>>>> Kids, New Data Show
>>>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/health/pfizer-vaccine-kids.html>
>>>>
>>>> "*The vaccine offered almost no protection against infection*,
>>>> even just a month after full vaccination."
>>>>
>>>> "according to a large new set of data collected by health officials
>>>> in New York State - a finding that has deep ramifications for these
>>>> children"
>>>>
>>>> "It still prevents severe illness in the children,
>>>> but offers *virtually no protection against infection*,
>>>> even within a month after full immunization"
>>>>
>>>> verbatim
>>>
>>> "“It’s disappointing, but not entirely surprising, given this is a
>>> vaccine developed in response to an earlier variant,” said Eli
>>> Rosenberg, deputy director for science at the New York State
>>> Department of Health, who led the study."
>>>
>>> The vaccine also has little effect in preventing other age groups
>>> from catching the omicron variant. As with this study, it only
>>> reduces symptoms and the likelihood of hospitalization.
>>
>> Reducing symptoms and the likelihood of hospitalisation (and death) was
>> the entire point of he vaccinations. They were never advertised by any
>> with a brain as completely stopping you from being infected.
>
> Actually, a properly configured flu vaccine allows the body to fight
> off a pre-designated disease. You don't 'get' it.

For your body to be able fight off the disease, you obviously have to
get it ... your body can't possibly fight off anything outside of
itself. :-\

The vaccines simply give your immune systems a "heads up" so that it
already knows how to deal with it when it does get it, and can
therefore respond quicker and better.

> Pfizer was >80% effective in doing this, pre-variant.

legg wrote:

> Actually, a properly configured flu vaccine allows the body to fight
> off a pre-designated disease. You don't 'get' it.

The iKooks don't realize kids aren't adults (which is ironic), in that the
dose of the novel drug was _different_ (lower) for the kids than for adults.

None of the iKooks even clicked on the link to read it before claiming that
it doesn't say what it clearly does say. It's what iKooks do.

The _entire_ belief systems of iKooks is always based on fear & emotion.
Not facts.

In this case, they're afraid the kids will give them the disease.
And yet, forcing the drug into the kids doesn't seem to prevent that at all.
Besides, that's _not_ what a vaccine is _supposed_ to be doing after all.

It's supposed to prevent infection.
Not make the iKooks _feel_ safe.

You seem to be one of the few people here who recognize that a vaccine was
never intended for the only thing that injecting kids with this drug by
force apparently accomplishes.

However, then you _also_ noted that the injection that is proposed to be
forced into these young kids is a much smaller amount of the adult drug.

Hence, what's needed, of course, is more testing.

The reduced dose _did_ do well in initial tests with _adult_ volunteers (at
least I remember reading that, but if you want to make me do work I can dig
it up, but the point is that they chose the reduced does for the kids).

Given my entire point is that the kids don't need this drug injected into
them (since their fatality rate is almost zero to start with), then what we
need is more data about whether a _greater_ amount of the drug will have at
least some benefit in terms of resistance to infection that this one pretty
clearly does _not_ have.

Your Name wrote:

> The vaccines simply give your immune systems a "heads up" so that it
> already knows how to deal with it when it does get it, and can
> therefore respond quicker and better.

The _entire_ belief systems of iKooks is always based on fear & emotion.
Not facts.

In this case, they're afraid the kids will give them the disease.
And yet, forcing the drug into the kids doesn't seem to prevent that at all.
Besides, that's _not_ what a vaccine is _supposed_ to be doing after all.

It's supposed to prevent infection.
Not make the iKooks _feel_ safe.

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 10:09:53 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>On 2022-03-02 13:20:38 +0000, legg said:
>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 10:22:14 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-01 15:01:02 +0000, legg said:
>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 23:24:36 +0000, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> verbatim.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pfizer Shot Is Far Less Effective in 5- to 11-Year-Olds Than in Older
>>>>> Kids, New Data Show
>>>>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/health/pfizer-vaccine-kids.html>
>>>>>
>>>>> "*The vaccine offered almost no protection against infection*,
>>>>> even just a month after full vaccination."
>>>>>
>>>>> "according to a large new set of data collected by health officials
>>>>> in New York State - a finding that has deep ramifications for these
>>>>> children"
>>>>>
>>>>> "It still prevents severe illness in the children,
>>>>> but offers *virtually no protection against infection*,
>>>>> even within a month after full immunization"
>>>>>
>>>>> verbatim
>>>>
>>>> "“It’s disappointing, but not entirely surprising, given this is a
>>>> vaccine developed in response to an earlier variant,” said Eli
>>>> Rosenberg, deputy director for science at the New York State
>>>> Department of Health, who led the study."
>>>>
>>>> The vaccine also has little effect in preventing other age groups
>>>> from catching the omicron variant. As with this study, it only
>>>> reduces symptoms and the likelihood of hospitalization.
>>>
>>> Reducing symptoms and the likelihood of hospitalisation (and death) was
>>> the entire point of he vaccinations. They were never advertised by any
>>> with a brain as completely stopping you from being infected.
>>
>> Actually, a properly configured flu vaccine allows the body to fight
>> off a pre-designated disease. You don't 'get' it.
>
>For your body to be able fight off the disease, you obviously have to
>get it ... your body can't possibly fight off anything outside of
>itself. :-\
>
>The vaccines simply give your immune systems a "heads up" so that it
>already knows how to deal with it when it does get it, and can
>therefore respond quicker and better.
>
>
>> Pfizer was >80% effective in doing this, pre-variant.
>
You've 'got' the disease if your viral load rises high enough
to infect others.

RL

legg wrote:

> You've 'got' the disease if your viral load rises high enough
> to infect others.

The Your Name iKook is an idiot but even what you said isn't completely true
so I just want to clarify that the definition of whether or not you got the
disease doesn't depend on the viral load being high enough to be contagious.

Most people are not only ignorant of immunology (they think _everything_ is
what they happen to know about the flu!) but also of Covid (they think every
clickbait article about Covid is the latest scientific journal article).

For example, you can get plenty of diseases which aren't all that
contagious, such as, oh, leprosy or even AIDS (depending on what activities
you do).
--
BTW, it's OK that most people are ignorant about Covid as long as they don't
use that ignorance to force others to believe the ignorant things they do.

In article <svp1s7$ppi$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> For example, you can get plenty of diseases which aren't all that
> contagious, such as, oh, leprosy or even AIDS (depending on what activities
> you do).

which ones did you get?

nospam wrote:

>> For example, you can get plenty of diseases which aren't all that
>> contagious, such as, oh, leprosy or even AIDS (depending on what activities
>> you do).
>
> which ones did you get?

Adults note iKooks respond to scientific fact as fifth-grade ignorant
bullies do when told that Santa Claus is merely an advertising gimmick.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> legg wrote:
>
>> You've 'got' the disease if your viral load rises high enough
>> to infect others.
>
> The Your Name iKook is an idiot but even what you said isn't completely true
> so I just want to clarify that the definition of whether or not you got the
> disease doesn't depend on the viral load being high enough to be contagious.
>
> Most people are not only ignorant of immunology (they think _everything_ is
> what they happen to know about the flu!) but also of Covid (they think every
> clickbait article about Covid is the latest scientific journal article).
>
> For example, you can get plenty of diseases which aren't all that
> contagious, such as, oh, leprosy or even AIDS (depending on what activities
> you do).
>
I strongly suspect you don’t know squat about immunology, but you’ve
latched onto a completely irrelevant topic to use as a bully stick in your
pathologically obsessive personal vendetta against an…wait for it…operating
system. You’re the real kook here nymshifting troll. And like SARS-CoV-2
you’re a persistent scourge coming from bats, except in your case excreted
through their anus as guano 🦇💩

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

> you're a persistent scourge coming from bats, except in your case excreted
> through their anus as guano

Adults will note the iKooks _hate_ all facts about Apple products & users.

> I strongly suspect you don�t know squat about immunology

I wonder if this uneducated low-IQ low-self-esteem iKook Hemidactylus knows
you can get rabies from breathing in bat guano dust (e.g., while caving)?

--
I don't care that iKooks are uneducated & of low IQ & low self esteem, but
_because_ of that, they can't respond to facts like a normal adult would.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
>> you're a persistent scourge coming from bats, except in your case excreted
>> through their anus as guano
>
> Adults will note the iKooks _hate_ all facts about Apple products & users.
>
>> I strongly suspect you donąt know squat about immunology
>
> I wonder if this uneducated low-IQ low-self-esteem iKook Hemidactylus knows
> you can get rabies from breathing in bat guano dust (e.g., while caving)?
>
I wonder if kook Arlen knows how exposure to an antigen (via pathogen or
vaccine) can lead to adaptive changes in immunoglobulin genes that had
already undergone rearrangement compared to germline…or how another genetic
change couples variable regions with certain effector functions.

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

> I wonder if kook Arlen knows how exposure to an antigen (via pathogen or
> vaccine) can lead to adaptive changes in immunoglobulin genes that had
> already undergone rearrangement compared to germline�Kor how another genetic
> change couples variable regions with certain effector functions.

Did the iKook Hemidactylus paste that blurb out of this reference perchance?
<http://atlasgeneticsoncology.org/Educ/PolyIgEng.html>

Every time these iKooks post, I shake my head in sheer amazed wonderment.
Who is _that_ stupid?

I've never met, in the flesh, anyone as ignorant as these iKooks are.
*That's why these rather strange iKooks interest me*
--
I don't care that iKooks are uneducated & of low IQ & low self esteem; but
_because_ of that, they hate not only facts, but people who bear only facts.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
>> I wonder if kook Arlen knows how exposure to an antigen (via pathogen or
>> vaccine) can lead to adaptive changes in immunoglobulin genes that had
>> already undergone rearrangement compared to germline”Kor how another genetic
>> change couples variable regions with certain effector functions.
>
> Did the iKook Hemidactylus paste that blurb out of this reference perchance?
> <http://atlasgeneticsoncology.org/Educ/PolyIgEng.html>
>
> Every time these iKooks post, I shake my head in sheer amazed wonderment.
> Who is _that_ stupid?
>
> I've never met, in the flesh, anyone as ignorant as these iKooks are.
> *That's why these rather strange iKooks interest me*
>
You presented no cogent response. My account is from an immunology course
years ago and reading multiple sources since. Do you even know who Susumu
Tonegawa was?

I alluded to three well known processes underpinning adaptive immunity in
B-cells. T-cell genes undergo rearrangement (no hypermutation or class
switching…duh!), but it is the way MHC works that makes T-cell epitopes
different than those targeted by B-cells. Whooshed Arlen’s head.

That you failed to name any of the three processes in B-cells indicates
your profound ignorance of adaptive immunity. No surprise there.

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

> That you failed to name any of the three processes in B-cells indicates
> your profound ignorance of adaptive immunity. No surprise there.

You cut and pasted everything out of something you found on the Internet.
It's what people do on the physics newsgroups who want to play games.

They throw words around like Riemann Manifolds and Christoffel symbols.
As if they know what they're talking about (just like you are doing now).

The fact remains you iKooks are consistently all of the same ilk:
a. None of you have any education to speak of
b. All of you suffer from a low IQ
c. Worse, all of you use Apple products to raise your low self esteem

You iKooks even _gloat_ over how much profit Apple makes off of you!
*Nobody but an ignorant person of low self esteem would do that!*
--
I don't care that iKooks are uneducated & of low IQ & low self esteem; but
_because_ of that, they can't comprehend anyone who speaks cogent facts.