Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> *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.
>
Liar. Those words came from memory.
>
> 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).
>
So you don’t know what adaptive immunity is then, but deflect that FACT by
accusing me of plagiarizing a page.
>
> 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!*
>
Called on your ignorance of basic immunology you bloviate.

On Thu, 03 Mar 2022 05:23:15 -0600, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>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,

He might know squat, but he certainly doesn't know diddly squat.

> but you’ve
>latched onto a completely irrelevant topic to use as a bully stick in your
>pathologically obsessive personal vendetta against

I can think of a better place for him to put that stick.

>an…wait for it…operating
>system. You’re the real kook here nymshifting troll.

Yes. And as you should do with all trolls, please stop replying to
him; killfile him. What all trolls want is replies. If they get no
replies, they sooner or later get bored and go away.

He's killfiled here, but I don't want to read replies to him.

>And like SARS-CoV-2
>you’re a persistent scourge coming from bats, except in your case excreted
>through their anus as guano 🦇💩

On Fri, 04 Mar 2022 04:18:49 +1100, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Mar 2022 05:23:15 -0600, *Hemidactylus*
> <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
>> 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,
>
>
> He might know squat, but he certainly doesn't know diddly squat.
>
>
>
>> but you’ve
>> latched onto a completely irrelevant topic to use as a bully stick in
>> your
>> pathologically obsessive personal vendetta against
>
>
> I can think of a better place for him to put that stick.
>
>
>
>> an…wait for it…operating
>> system. You’re the real kook here nymshifting troll.
>
>
> Yes. And as you should do with all trolls, please stop replying to
> him; killfile him. What all trolls want is replies. If they get no
> replies, they sooner or later get bored and go away.

Thats not true. There are at least three I know who get
no replys at all who keep posting daily. One of them ends
up as the most prolific poster in one of the groups I read.

> He's killfiled here, but I don't want to read replies to him.

OperaMail can killfile replys to the individual you killfile.

>> And like SARS-CoV-2
>> you’re a persistent scourge coming from bats, except in your case
>> excreted
>> through their anus as guano 🦇💩

On Fri, 04 Mar 2022 05:17:07 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Mar 2022 04:18:49 +1100, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2022 05:23:15 -0600, *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> 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,
>>
>>
>> He might know squat, but he certainly doesn't know diddly squat.
>>
>>
>>
>>> but you’ve
>>> latched onto a completely irrelevant topic to use as a bully stick in
>>> your
>>> pathologically obsessive personal vendetta against
>>
>>
>> I can think of a better place for him to put that stick.
>>
>>
>>
>>> an…wait for it…operating
>>> system. You’re the real kook here nymshifting troll.
>>
>>
>> Yes. And as you should do with all trolls, please stop replying to
>> him; killfile him. What all trolls want is replies. If they get no
>> replies, they sooner or later get bored and go away.
>
>Thats not true. There are at least three I know who get
>no replys at all who keep posting daily.

OK, I'll modify what I said to "If they get no replies, most of them
sooner or later get bored and go away."

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

> Called on your ignorance of basic immunology you bloviate.

This is the first related sentence that you cut and pasted, Hemidactylus.
"...knows how exposure to an antigen (via pathogen or vaccine)
can lead to adaptive changes..."

Do you even realize the obvious factual _fatal_ flaw in that snippet alone?

No?
Really?

Well, I did.
Immediately.

Every single person schooled in immunology would catch that flaw instantly.

And yet you can't.
Because you don't know what anyone would know who is schooled in immunology.

In fact, the defining quality of _all_ you iKooks is the "iKook trilogy".
a. Ignorant
b. Low IQ
c. Low self esteem (they derive their self esteem from Apple marketing)

I'm sorry for you (really, I am); but you just proved me correct yet again.
--
I don't care iKooks are uneducated & of low IQ & low self esteem; but
_because_ of that, they often fabricate an education they simply don't have.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
>> Called on your ignorance of basic immunology you bloviate.
>
> This is the first related sentence that you cut and pasted, Hemidactylus.
> "...knows how exposure to an antigen (via pathogen or vaccine)
> can lead to adaptive changes..."
>
You are a craven liar. That word string doesn’t appear on the page you
linked. Apologize now.
>
> Do you even realize the obvious factual _fatal_ flaw in that snippet alone?
>
> No?
> Really?
>
> Well, I did.
> Immediately.
>
> Every single person schooled in immunology would catch that flaw instantly.
>
> And yet you can't.
> Because you don't know what anyone would know who is schooled in immunology.
>
If you immediately saw a fatal flaw, the onus on you is to detail it in
your own words. My post you accused me of plagiarizing was probative and
you have failed to demonstrate anything more than you are a liar.
>
> In fact, the defining quality of _all_ you iKooks is the "iKook trilogy".
> a. Ignorant
> b. Low IQ
> c. Low self esteem (they derive their self esteem from Apple marketing)
>
> I'm sorry for you (really, I am); but you just proved me correct yet again.
>
Now would be a great time for you to demonstrate that fatal flaw from the
post I did in my own knowledgable words or STFU. Clue: activation-induced
cytidine deaminase

On 2/28/2022 7:15 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?

Maybe not. But they are miles ahead of FOX and other anti-vax anti-mask
anti-distancing spreaders of misinformation.

--
Noli sinere pessimi nequissimique te tristificare!

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

> Now would be a great time for you to demonstrate that fatal flaw from the
> post I did in my own knowledgable words or STFU. Clue: activation-induced
> cytidine deaminase

Hint: Cell mediated immunity.
Doublehint: Type IV CMI.
--
Nobody who knows _anything_ about immunology is ignorant of this fact.

John McGaw wrote:

>> And the New York Times is the foremost authority on immunology, are they?
>
> Maybe not. But they are miles ahead of FOX and other anti-vax anti-mask
> anti-distancing spreaders of misinformation.

Where are those news outfits in terms of a bias & accuracy search engine?
https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/

On 01/03/2022 21:55, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> 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.

Read again what you quoted verbatim (emphasis mine):

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

It explicitly /does/ protect children, what *you* quoted even says so...

The primary function of vaccines is to stop people succumbing to
disease. The COVID vaccines all perform admirably well against all the
variants.

Chris wrote:

> Read again what you quoted verbatim (emphasis mine):

Chris,

*Below is an adult observation*... which almost nobody on this newsgroup
will be intelligent enough to comprehend, even as it's trivially simple.

From the start I said that Steve's thread was Steve _gloating_ that he loved
when people are _forced_ to have this novel drug injected into their bodies.
Your Body... His choice.

My main point was that it's the most ignorant people who want these novel
drugs injected into _other_ people's bodies... because _they_ are afraid.

That's why I kept explaining to you that kids have almost zero Covid risk.
Fear filled people like Steve want kids to be injected, not for the kids.

They want the kids to be injected because _they_ are afraid of the kids.
Specifically, they are afraid of the kids _infecting them_ with Covid.

That is a critical point _you_ seem to fail to comprehend completely.
And yet, that's the _entire_ reason for Steve to be injecting these kids.

Don't you understand that?
I do.

Hence, when the news came out that the novel drug, when injected into kids,
doesn't even prevent _that_, then it's important to the entire point.

This is what you fail to comprehend, Chris.
(Because you don't own the adult cognitive skills to understand it.)

*It's NOT important to that point whether or not kids are hospitalized.*
*It's NOT important to that point whether or not kids feel fewer symptoms.*

The _only_ factors that are critically important to my _adult_ point are:
1. Kids have almost zero risk of dying of Covid
2. Kids have almost zero immunity to Covid with or without being injected
3. Which means kids can infect the adults with or without being injected

*And yet, ignorant people (like you & Steve) want to force inject the kids!*

I realize you completely lack the adult cognition necessary to understand.

Yet, I always claimed that it was often the most ignorant people who are the
most filled with unreasonably mind-numbing fears based on lack of knowledge.
--
I don't care all iKooks are uneducated, child-like, of low IQ & of low self
esteem; but due to that, they can't comprehend concepts most adults should.

On 03/03/2022 22:02, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> Read again what you quoted verbatim (emphasis mine):
>

[ snip nonsense desperately trying to cover the fact that his own post
contradicts his dogma ]

"It *still prevents severe illness in the children*"

Chris wrote:

> "It *still prevents severe illness in the children*"

Nobody disputes that.
But that's not the point.

I know you have a low IQ because you can't seem to grasp simple concepts.

As I said, the adult concept is in understanding _why_ Steve wanted to force
all people (including kids) to get the drug injected into their bodies.

*Steve was afraid those un-injected people would infect _him_.*

The fact the drug doesn't prevent infection all that much means they're
_still_ infectious to _him_ (which is the key point we were discussing).
--
I know you have a low IQ because you can't seem to grasp simple concepts.

On 2022-03-04 1:54 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> "It *still prevents severe illness in the children*"
>
> Nobody disputes that.
> But that's not the point.

Really?

It's certainly a point you want to ignore.

It's certainly a more important point than whether or not it prevents
infection entirely.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> "It *still prevents severe illness in the children*"
>
> Nobody disputes that.

Apart from you:

> And yet, the facts show it probably can't even do that.

Chris wrote:

>>> "It *still prevents severe illness in the children*"
>>
>> Nobody disputes that.
>
> Apart from you:
>
>> And yet, the facts show it probably can't even do that.

Chris,
It does almost nothing.
You're desperate to find _something_ it does, and I get that.

But the fact is that people _thought_ it would do what it does for adults.
It doesn't.

And the reason why it doesn't was surmised in the articles.
(You probably missed that - but I didn't).

But it doesn't matter why it doesn't work for kids like it does for adults.
It just matters that it doesn't.

On 2022-03-05 10:12 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>>> "It *still prevents severe illness in the children*"
>>>
>>> Nobody disputes that.
>>
>> Apart from you:
>>
>>> And yet, the facts show it probably can't even do that.
>
> Chris, It does almost nothing.

"It does almost nothing" is DISPUTING "It *still prevents severe illness
in the children*"

> You're desperate to find _something_ it does, and I get that.
>
> But the fact is that people _thought_ it would do what it does for adults.
> It doesn't.

"It *still prevents severe illness in the children*"

>
> And the reason why it doesn't was surmised in the articles.
> (You probably missed that - but I didn't).
>
> But it doesn't matter why it doesn't work for kids like it does for adults.
> It just matters that it doesn't.

"It *still prevents severe illness in the children*"

On 06/03/2022 06:12, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>>> "It *still prevents severe illness in the children*"
>>>
>>> Nobody disputes that.
>>
>> Apart from you:
>>
>>> And yet, the facts show it probably can't even do that.
>
> Chris, It does almost nothing.

You're disputing the facts. Seeing as in your own words "Nobody disputes
that", you are - logically speaking - a nobody.

Well done for tying yourself up so much that you disagree with yourself
and made yourself irrelevant. Let's see if you learn anything from this...

On 2022-03-06 07:06:27 +0000, Alan said:
> On 2022-03-05 10:12 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "It *still prevents severe illness in the children*"
>>>>
>>>> Nobody disputes that.
>>>
>>> Apart from you:
>>>
>>>> And yet, the facts show it probably can't even do that.
>>
>> Chris, It does almost nothing.
>
> "It does almost nothing" is DISPUTING "It *still prevents severe
> illness in the children*"
>
>> You're desperate to find _something_ it does, and I get that.
>>
>> But the fact is that people _thought_ it would do what it does for adults.
>> It doesn't.
>
> "It *still prevents severe illness in the children*"
>
>
>> And the reason why it doesn't was surmised in the articles.
>> (You probably missed that - but I didn't).
>>
>> But it doesn't matter why it doesn't work for kids like it does for adults.
>> It just matters that it doesn't.
>
> "It *still prevents severe illness in the children*"

Which is exactly the same as what it does in adults too.

It's not a cure, it doesn't make you 100% invulnerable, and the
vaccines were never advertised as doing either of those things. Of
course, know-absolutely-nothing morons and trolls like "Andy Burnelli"
will continue to post garbage misinformation about anything and
everything.

Your Name wrote:

> Which is exactly the same as what it does in adults too.

Again, I will attempt to speak to you as if you own adult cognitive skills.
You need to comprehend that the issue isn't "symptoms" but "infectivity".

To put it in kindergarten terms you can understand...

What Steve is worried about is himself.
a. People like Steve want to force others to get the drug injected in them
b. Not for those others...
c. But for _Steve_ to feel safe.

Given that's the entire point of the gloating in this thread by Steve,
it doesn't matter materially that there's might be a possible reduction in
some people of _symptoms_ because none of that directly affects Steve.

If you can't comprehend, even after a half dozen posts, what any adult would
comprehend, then you're simply proving you don't own adult cognitive skills.

> It's not a cure, it doesn't make you 100% invulnerable, and the
> vaccines were never advertised as doing either of those things. Of
> course, know-absolutely-nothing morons and trolls like "Andy Burnelli"
> will continue to post garbage misinformation about anything and
> everything.

And yet, I responded to you as an adult even as you responded as a child.
You can't comprehend that the topic isn't "symptoms" but "infectivity".

It's like someone says it's raining outside and all you can think about is
what's in your lunchbox.

You iKooks can't seem to figure out what the adult topics are.
It's _why_ you're iKooks.

You get _all_ your belief systems from someone else who feeds them to you.
None of you iKooks has the IQ to formulate your own belief system from fact.
--
I don't care all iKooks are uneducated, child-like, of low IQ & of low self
esteem; but due to that, they can't comprehend concepts most adults should.

Chris wrote:

>>>> And yet, the facts show it probably can't even do that.
>>
>> Chris, It does almost nothing.
>
> You're disputing the facts. Seeing as in your own words "Nobody disputes
> that", you are - logically speaking - a nobody.
>
> Well done for tying yourself up so much that you disagree with yourself
> and made yourself irrelevant. Let's see if you learn anything from this...

Play your silly kindergarten games.
You iKooks do that every time you have no _adult_ defense to facts.

The _adult_ concept remains that their "infectivity" is about the same with
or without having the new drug force injected into these young kids.

If Steve's main point was he was _afraid_ of these kids being killed, that's
not a viable fear because the kids don't die with or without the injection.

And if Steve's main point was that he was _afraid_ of these kids infecting
him, again, that's not a viable fear because their infectivity doesn't
change all that much with or without drugs being forced into their bodies.
--
I don't care all iKooks are uneducated, child-like, of low IQ & of low self
esteem; but due to that, they can't comprehend concepts most adults should.

On 06/03/2022 22:45, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>>>> And yet, the facts show it probably can't even do that.
>>>
>>> Chris, It does almost nothing.
>>
>> You're disputing the facts. Seeing as in your own words "Nobody
>> disputes that", you are - logically speaking - a nobody.
>>
>> Well done for tying yourself up so much that you disagree with
>> yourself and made yourself irrelevant. Let's see if you learn anything
>> from this...
>
> Play your silly kindergarten games.

That'll be a 'no', then.

Enjoy your irrelevance.

On 2022-03-06 2:13 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
>
>> Which is exactly the same as what it does in adults too.
>
> Again, I will attempt to speak to you as if you own adult cognitive skills.

While snipping the salient text...

More facts.

*The F.D.A. rejects an India-made Covid vaccine for those under 18*
<https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/04/world/fda-bharat-biotech-vaccine.html>

"The American pharmaceutical company Ocugen said on Friday that the
Food and Drug Administration had rejected its application seeking
emergency authorization for an India-made Covid vaccine
for those ages 2 to 18."

On 2022-03-06 5:59 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> More facts.
>
> *The F.D.A. rejects an India-made Covid vaccine for those under 18*
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/04/world/fda-bharat-biotech-vaccine.html>
>
> "The American pharmaceutical company Ocugen said on Friday that the
>  Food and Drug Administration had rejected its application seeking
>  emergency authorization for an India-made Covid vaccine  for those
> ages 2 to 18."

Which proves... ...what?