Anti-Science Streak in Vaccine Mandates by Biden and Others

[peter2...@gmail.com]

The scientific evidence is very strong that immunity conferred by having
recovered from Covid-19 is significantly better than that conferred by
vaccination. Yet the recovered cohort, a significant fraction now of the US
population, is completely ignored in every vaccine mandate that I have ever seen.

Today I learned of a case that exposes the injustice of not waiting until the
evidence in the above paragraph has been accepted or rejected by the
notoriously slow CDC, but going full speed ahead with mandates that ignore it.

It involves Dr. Stephen Skoly, a well-known oral and maxillofacial surgeon in
Rhode Island. The gist of his situation is summarized in the following excerpts from a recent interview.

Interviewer: Dr. Skoly, let’s begin with you. You are a well-known surgeon in
Rhode Island and you’ve recently been ordered to cease care by the state
Department of Health because you objected to the health care worker
vaccine mandate. Can you explain to us what’s going on in your situation and what you currently face today?

Stephen Skoly: "Sure. I received a compliance order on Friday, Oct. 1, to
prohibit in-person care for my patients and the other patients that I would see throughout the state. ...
The COVID mandate was issued in the middle of August with a charge of
mandated vaccinations for health care workers by Oct. 1. I looked into a
multitude of things. The most important for me at that point was a medical
exemption. I had a somewhat complicated issue following a couple
episodes of Lyme disease, which resulted in me having some Bell’s palsy. I had an ocular injury as a young adult to one of my eyes, which I’ve had some lens replacements.
...
"You either have an exemption because you have a severe allergic reaction or basically you’ve developed some type of myocardial problem secondary to the vaccination. ... I actually recovered from COVID—I got COVID in December of 2020, pretty sick for a few days...
...
I have been following my antibodies since that time and as recently as last week have quite a high level of COVID-19 spike protein IgG, which is the antibody for the recovery of my process. And it’s given me a pretty robust naturally acquired immunity and probably, and the literature is suggesting, that I might have five times the antibodies that a fully vaccinated person might have."
--https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/10/18/this-doctor-opposes-covid-vaccine-mandate-now-his-state-wont-let-him-practice-medicine/


Biden's one-size-fits-all mandate makes no exception for the recovered cohort, despite the scientific evidence, and neither has any other that I have read about. Most of the ones I have read about do not make exception for weekly testing for the coronavirus, like Biden's does; the one by the Rhode Island Department of Health obviously does not.

Is the blind eye this department turns towards Dr. Skoly's very robust
antibody level for the spike protein [1] typical of these mandates,
including Biden's? I'd welcome any news to the contrary from readers.


[1] This is the ONLY antibody whose production is stimulated by the Pfizer
and Moderna vacines. Yet it stands to reason that exposure to the full virus
should stimulate a number of different kinds of antibodies.
Dr. Skoly doesn't seem to be trying to ascertain their levels -- why bother going to the trouble, eh?


But Dr. Skoly has taken action of a different sort, which I'll be talking about
in my next post to this thread.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 9:50:14 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> The scientific evidence is very strong that immunity conferred by having
> recovered from Covid-19 is significantly better than that conferred by
> vaccination. Yet the recovered cohort, a significant fraction now of the US
> population, is completely ignored in every vaccine mandate that I have ever seen.
>
> Today I learned of a case that exposes the injustice of not waiting until the
> evidence in the above paragraph has been accepted or rejected by the
> notoriously slow CDC, but going full speed ahead with mandates that ignore it.
>
> It involves Dr. Stephen Skoly, a well-known oral and maxillofacial surgeon in
> Rhode Island. The gist of his situation is summarized in the following excerpts from a recent interview.
>
> Interviewer: Dr. Skoly, let’s begin with you. You are a well-known surgeon in
> Rhode Island and you’ve recently been ordered to cease care by the state
> Department of Health because you objected to the health care worker
> vaccine mandate. Can you explain to us what’s going on in your situation and what you currently face today?
>
> Stephen Skoly: "Sure. I received a compliance order on Friday, Oct. 1, to
> prohibit in-person care for my patients and the other patients that I would see throughout the state. ...
> The COVID mandate was issued in the middle of August with a charge of
> mandated vaccinations for health care workers by Oct. 1.

Dr. Skoly also serves as chairman of the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity.
Its president, Mike Stenhouse, participated on the interview. The Center
has recently produced a policy brief titled “Natural Immunity Should Be Included as a Vaccine Exemption.”
https://rifreedom.org/2021/09/natural-immunity-should-be-a-vaccine-exemption/

The word "brief" is appropriate. Right now it seems to be only indirectly relevant to an ongoing
lawsuit against the State of Rhode Island, against a mask mandate in the public schools;
but it would obviously be directly relevant to any lawsuit against the vaccine mandate.

In the words of Stenhouse: "What’s different about the court case with the parents—we call it the “parents united lawsuit”—who are going against school mask mandates, and what will be different in Doc Skoly’s hearing is the argument is not going to be so much on the power of the government versus the rights of the people, it’s going to be attacking the very medical basis that the government is using for these mandates.

"In the school mask mandate trial, they’re arguing that there is no emergency among kids; and masks, even if there was, are not the solution. Science says that they are ineffective."

And science says that natural immunity is effective. Tomorrow I discuss the scientific evidence in the brief,
and also elsewhere.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Glenn]

This has nothing to do with science. Never let a good pandemic go to waste. It's about control, money and power. Ideology only when it can be fit in.

[*Hemidactylus*]

The benefits of “hybrid immunity” may blow your argument out of the water.
If I had been previously infected the following would compel me to still
get at least one if not both jabs:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02795-x

Could “hybrid immunity” be super immunity?

“Those who had recovered from COVID-19 months before receiving their jabs
harboured antibodies capable of defanging the mutant spike, which displays
much more resistance to immune attack than any known naturally occurring
variant. These peoples’ antibodies even blocked other types of
coronaviruses. “It’s very likely they will be effective against any future
variant that SARS-CoV-2 throws against them,” says Hatziioannou.”

I have been hearing this stuff before, but wouldn’t want to risk the
process of acquiring natural immunity before having gotten my shots.

“Initial studies of people with hybrid immunity found that their serum —
the antibody-containing portion of blood — was far better able to
neutralize immune-evading strains, such as the Beta variant identified in
South Africa, and other coronaviruses, compared with ‘naive’ vaccinated
individuals who had never encountered SARS-CoV-22. It wasn’t clear whether
this was just due to the high levels of neutralizing antibodies, or to
other properties.”

Still I would rather be immunized and not risk death beforehand. But if
someone thinks natural immunity sufficient why not add benefits of
vaccination for more protection?

The article differentiates plasmablasts from memory cells.

“Some of these long-lived cells make higher-quality antibodies than
plasmablasts, says Michel Nussenzweig, an immunologist at the Rockefeller.
That’s because they evolve in organs called lymph nodes, gaining mutations
that help them to bind more tightly to the spike protein over time. When
people who recovered from COVID-19 are re-exposed to SARS-CoV-2’s spike,
these cells multiply and churn out more of these highly potent antibodies.”

Gaining mutations? Sound familiar? Similar to my thread you bulldozed over?

“Differences between the memory B cells triggered by infection and those
triggered by vaccination — as well as the antibodies they make — might also
underlie the heightened responses of hybrid immunity. Infection and
vaccination expose the spike protein to the immune system in vastly
different ways, Nussenzweig says.”

Hmmm…

“Natural infection triggered antibodies that continued to grow in potency
and their breadth against variants for a year after infection, whereas most
of those elicited by vaccination seemed to stop changing in the weeks after
a second dose. Memory B cells that evolved after infection were also more
likely than those from vaccination to make antibodies that block
immune-evading variants such as Beta and Delta.”

By “evolved” are they talking about hypermutation? Still hybrid immunity
looks interesting compared to mere natural immunity. Whether the latter is
sufficient in itself versus vaccination I dunno.

“There is some evidence that people who received both jabs without
previously being infected seem to be catching up.” Makes me hopeful. Time
may tell. The infected had mostly gotten a head start in the somatic
Darwinism thingy.

Here’s the kicker per my “mRNA vaccines changing DNA??” thread:
“Ellebedy’s team collected lymph-node samples from mRNA-vaccinated
individuals and found signs that some of their memory B cells triggered by
the vaccination were gaining mutations, up to 12 weeks after the second
dose, that enabled them to recognize diverse coronaviruses, including some
that cause common colds7.”

Gaining mutations? What do you think of that.

And: “A third vaccine dose might allow people who haven't been infected to
achieve the benefits of hybrid immunity, says Matthieu Mahévas, an
immunologist at the Necker Institute for Sick Children in Paris.”

And per reliance on natural immunity alone: “Hybrid immunity might also be
responsible for falling case numbers across South America, says Gonzalo
Bello Bentancor, a virologist at the Oswaldo Cruz Institute in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil. Many South American countries experienced very high
infection rates earlier in the pandemic, but have now vaccinated a large
proportion of their populations. It's possible that hybrid immunity is
better than the immunity from vaccination alone at blocking transmission,
says Bello Bentancor.”

So get shots even after infection to knock this COVID monster out? Why rely
solely on natural immunity?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Well:

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination

“The data is clear: Natural immunity is not better. The COVID-19 vaccines
create more effective and longer-lasting immunity than natural immunity
from infection.
More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective
antibodies
Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity
Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity
plus vaccination”

“"Natural immunity can be spotty. Some people can react vigorously and get
a great antibody response. Other people don't get such a great response,"
says infectious diseases expert Mark Rupp, MD. "Clearly, vaccine-induced
immunity is more standardized and can be longer-lasting."”

“Some people who get COVID-19 receive no protection from reinfection –
their natural immunity is nonexistent. A recent study found that 36% of
COVID-19 cases didn't result in development of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The
people had different levels of illness – most had moderate disease, but
some were asymptomatic and some experienced severe COVID-19.”

The article cites: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article

And: “What about that Israeli study suggesting natural immunity is
stronger? Infectious diseases expert James Lawler, MD, MPH, FIDSA,
carefully evaluates the study design of the retrospective Maccabi Health
System study in his Aug. 31 briefing. In the briefing, he identifies two
concerning sources of error that were not corrected for: survivorship bias
and selection bias.”

So…I dunno. If I had survived COVID I would still get both jabs as I would
probably want to reduce my chances of going through that again as much as
possible. Maybe evidence will show vaccine mandates unnecessary. Or maybe
uncertainty of immunity conferred by vaccination or how long it lasts will
make vaccines still necessary, at least as natural immunity could wane. And
shots after infections may give one even better immunity than the viral
infection or jabs alone.

How long will immunity from infection last? If someone was infected early
in 2020 should we trust they are still immune? Do they get an exemption
forever?

[jillery]

<https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/coronavirus-vaccine-mandate-for-those-who-have-gotten-covid-19.aspx>
<https://tinyurl.com/p5s4wkce>
*******************************
"The Biden administration's mandate is unlikely to distinguish between
those who have had previous infections and those who have not, and
employers should not do so either—and for good reason," said Martha
Boyd, an attorney with Baker Donelson in Nashville, Tenn. Individual
immunity levels after infection vary based on a variety of factors,
including the severity of the previous infection.

While a study from Israeli researchers shows natural immunity to be
more protective than vaccine immunity, as reported by Bloomberg,
findings from a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
study suggest that full vaccination provides additional protection to
those who have had COVID-19.

Objections based on a previous COVID-19 infection would have to be
made through the reasonable accommodation request process, noted
Andrew Maunz, an attorney with Jackson Lewis in Pittsburgh, and the
employer should then follow its normal accommodation procedures to
determine if the following applies:

* The employee has a disability under the Americans with Disabilities
Act that conflicts with the employment policy.

* A reasonable accommodation can be provided without an undue hardship
on the employer.

In some cases, it would be difficult to know whether an employee had
COVID-19, particularly if that person's infection occurred before
testing was available and was identified solely based on the presence
of antibodies or self-reported symptoms, Boyd said. "Accordingly, we
advise employers who require employees to be vaccinated not to
distinguish between those who were previously infected and those who
were not with regard to the vaccination protocol," she said.

An employer that lets an employee bypass a vaccine mandate by claiming
natural immunity from prior infection may be in the uncomfortable
position of determining on a case-by-case basis whether the worker's
claim is true, Boyd said. "Employers would have difficulty verifying
previous infection."
*****************************

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 20:46:52 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Not sure why you think ideology should be exempted from science, but
the following is one example where ideology is fit in:
<https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx>

<https://tinyurl.com/72mc3j7w>
************************************
Although exemptions vary from state to state, all school immunization
laws grant exemptions to children for medical reasons. There are 44
states and Washington D.C. that grant religious exemptions for people
who have religious objections to immunizations. Currently, 15 states
allow philosophical exemptions for children whose parents object to
immunizations because of personal, moral or other beliefs.
***********************************

Not sure how rational it is to rely on God sorting out his own. God
does a poor job of it during other natural disasters.

[*Hemidactylus*]

More food for thought:

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/vaccine/natural-immunity-difference-covid-vaccine/63-e14e70fc-b4e3-4956-ab37-90cbc2e4ffd8

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/vaccine/israeli-study-did-find-natural-immunity-is-effective-in-fighting-covid-19-health-experts-recommend-vaccination/536-ff80f3d4-bb78-4eb3-8889-7eed73d4d9b6

And Moderna vs Pfizer showdown?

https://www.businessinsider.com/moderna-vaccines-might-not-need-boosters-like-pfizer-2021-9

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7038e1.htm

The much touted Israeli study focused on Pfizer no?

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

And from that:
“Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a
single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta
variant.”

So…

And: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf

“Our study has several limitations. First, as the Delta variant was the
dominant strain in Israel during the outcome period, the decreased
long-term protection of the vaccine compared to that afforded by previous
infection cannot be ascertained against other strains. Second, our analysis
addressed protection afforded solely by the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2
vaccine, and therefore does not address other vaccines or long-term
protection following a third dose, of which the deployment is underway in
Israel.”

Still I dunno if natural immunity is sufficient or not per public health
policy. I’m not a public health expert tasked with making those difficult
decisions. Is anybody who is on this thread? We are all Monday morning
quarterbacks, not public health officials so…

[Mark Isaak]

Perhaps you should cite primary research instead of a pro-plutocracy
political organization. Science shows that masks are effective at
lowering risks of infection. So your source's credibility goes down in
flames.

I am strongly inclined to favor your premise that previous infection
with COVID-19 reduces the person's risk of future infection. The issue,
though, is not whether it reduces infection, but whether it reduces
spread. And whether it does so so effectively that adding a vaccine
would not reduce spread significantly more. What does research indicate
on those questions?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred
to the presence of those who think they've found it." - Terry Pratchett

[peter2...@gmail.com]

It'll begin in replies to posts like this one. Later it will be top priority on this thread.

> This has nothing to do with science.

Science is brought in by government when it is convenient to bring it in.

The same is true of talk.origins. It is convenient to bring in science when Trump needs to be bashed
as being anti-science. When Biden is in the hot seat, it is convenient for Hemidactylus to
call it "pointless" to be giving evidence of Biden being anti-science.

Now Hemidactylus thinks it is NOT pointless for him to be giving what he thinks of
as evidence of natural immunity being not better than vaccination,
but he's stuck in mid-September right about at the time that the first long-range study came in
that gave strong evidence of it being better.

And, of course, he's ignoring the elephant in the room: Dr. Skoly being barred from medical practice
despite a very high level of the very antibodies that the CDC considers to be relevant.

> Never let a good pandemic go to waste. It's about control,

Especially in Australia. The mandates are competing for top billing when compared to the totalitarian level
enforcement of lockdowns in Victoria where infection rates are a small fraction of US rates.
Building workers were big in "forbidden" demonstrations against lockdown, so the
Victoria government suspended all building for a week in retaliation. I'll have to check with
my wife's family in Australia to see whether that is still in force.

> money and power. Ideology only when it can be fit in.

Yes, "follow the money" applies. Big Pharma and Biden are happy bedfellows, and there
is no money to be made from people with robust immunity not wanting to be vaccinated.

As for power: the various governments, including Rhode Island, invoked "emergency" at the
drop of a hat when it suited them. It easily trumped all lawsuits on the basis of civil liberties.
But the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity has made that secondary to
the scientific baselessness of the mandates.

And Democratic Party ideology flies out the window when it suits Biden. He mouthed the slogan
"Women's right to make their own decisions about their health" when campaigning,
but that was him (blindly ?) using the Humpty Dumpty prerogative that the abortion rights movement
had put around the slogan over four decades earlier. Not applicable to getting vaccinated,
not even when strong scientific evidence shows that it IS applicable in millions of cases.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

Whether from prior infection, or from vaccine, it's not surprising
that the strength of the immune response wanes over time. The immune
system tends to forget unless it's reminded. And new variants are
regularly introduced into the environment. So duration isn't a
relevant issue wrt vaccine mandates for anybody.

Meanwhile, people who oppose vaccine mandates are escalating, by
quitting their jobs, threatening violent opposition, and seceding from
the Union. Really? The right to risk a lingering death while exposing
everyone around them to that same risk? Is that really an honorable
principle, one worth falling on their sword, a hill worth dying for?
Really?

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 10:45:34 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Science is brought in by government when it is convenient to bring it in.
>
>The same is true of talk.origins. It is convenient to bring in science when Trump needs to be bashed
>as being anti-science. When Biden is in the hot seat, it is convenient for Hemidactylus to
>call it "pointless" to be giving evidence of Biden being anti-science.

Trump is anti-science. That's one reason why most right-wing
Christians worship him as The Chosen One. Sharpiegate made
flat-earthers jealous.

Biden is not anti-science, His vaccine mandate does not make him
anti-science. Your baseless assertions are just more of your
willfully stupid shit-stirring for the sake of it.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I am no longer on speaking terms with Scott Chase, a.k.a. "Hemidactylus", so
everything I write here is addressed to t.o. participants as a whole.

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:05:14 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 9:50:14 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> The scientific evidence is very strong that immunity conferred by having
> >> recovered from Covid-19 is significantly better than that conferred by
> >> vaccination.

Nothing Hemidactylus wrote below addressed this directly.

> >> Yet the recovered cohort, a significant fraction now of the US
> >> population, is completely ignored in every vaccine mandate that I have ever seen.
> >>
> >> Today I learned of a case that exposes the injustice of not waiting until the
> >> evidence in the above paragraph has been accepted or rejected by the
> >> notoriously slow CDC, but going full speed ahead with mandates that ignore it.

No awareness of this issue was shown by Hemidactylus below.

"may" is wishful thinking, and nothing below supports any defect in my argument above.

> If I had been previously infected the following would compel me to still
> get at least one if not both jabs:

Hemidactylus is perfectly OK with Dr. Skoly being denied the right to practice medicine
due to not sharing Hemidactylus's compulsions.

> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02795-x
>
> Could “hybrid immunity” be super immunity?

"Could" is the operative word here, and conflicting narratives on this will probably be
the norm for a good time to come. First comes something highly complimentary
of natural immunity conferred by recovery from a previous infection, marred
by ambiguity of just WHAT produced the antibodies:

>
> “Those who had recovered from COVID-19 months before receiving their jabs
> harboured antibodies capable of defanging the mutant spike, which displays
> much more resistance to immune attack than any known naturally occurring
> variant. These peoples’ antibodies even blocked other types of
> coronaviruses. “It’s very likely they will be effective against any future
> variant that SARS-CoV-2 throws against them,” says Hatziioannou.”

Hemidactylus goes off on an egocentric tangent, with a no-brainer that
insults our intelligence:

> I have been hearing this stuff before, but wouldn’t want to risk the
> process of acquiring natural immunity before having gotten my shots.

N we are treated to a comment comparing hybrid immunity
with naive vaccine-created immunity, but not with non-hybrid immunity
that is the focus of the whole Rhode Island issue:

> “Initial studies of people with hybrid immunity found that their serum —
> the antibody-containing portion of blood — was far better able to
> neutralize immune-evading strains, such as the Beta variant identified in
> South Africa, and other coronaviruses, compared with ‘naive’ vaccinated
> individuals who had never encountered SARS-CoV-22. It wasn’t clear whether
> this was just due to the high levels of neutralizing antibodies, or to
> other properties.”


>
> Still I would rather be immunized and not risk death beforehand. But if
> someone thinks natural immunity sufficient why not add benefits of
> vaccination for more protection?

Hemidactylus has not yet made a case for "more protection."

The following makes a case all right-- but a very weak, perhaps purely academic one:

"Data from the Israeli Maccabi Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) have revealed that prior SARS- CoV-2 infection among those unvaccinated against covid-19 conferred a 7.0-fold decreased risk for new clinical, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a 6.7- fold lower risk for covid-19 hospitalization, relative to those with no prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, but fully vaccinated against covid-19 (2). Although secondary analyses from this Israeli HMO cohort found, similarly, that covid-19 vaccination of previously SARS-CoV-2 infected persons did not reduce either symptomatic, clinical SARS-CoV-2 infections, or covid-19 hospitalizations, the occurrence of asymptomatic SARS- CoV-2 infections was reduced (2)."
https://rifreedom.org/2021/09/natural-immunity-should-be-a-vaccine-exemption/

(2) is: Gazit S, Shlezinger R, Perez G, Lotan R, Peretz A, Ben-Tov A, Cohen D, Muhsen K, Chodick G, Patalon T. “Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections”. medRxiv August 24,2021. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415

>
> The article differentiates plasmablasts from memory cells.
>
> “Some of these long-lived cells make higher-quality antibodies than
> plasmablasts, says Michel Nussenzweig, an immunologist at the Rockefeller.
> That’s because they evolve in organs called lymph nodes, gaining mutations
> that help them to bind more tightly to the spike protein over time. When
> people who recovered from COVID-19 are re-exposed to SARS-CoV-2’s spike,
> these cells multiply and churn out more of these highly potent antibodies.”
>

Better and better, the case for natural immunity, with hybrid immunity not mentioned.

<snip irrelevant false personal accusation>

> “Differences between the memory B cells triggered by infection and those
> triggered by vaccination — as well as the antibodies they make — might also
> underlie the heightened responses of hybrid immunity. Infection and
> vaccination expose the spike protein to the immune system in vastly
> different ways, Nussenzweig says.”

The relevance of "heightened responses" may be lost in the sea of
"asymptomatic infections".

The quoted term refers to a hotchpot of phenomena, ranging from barely detectable
levels of infection where no harm is done to the body, to cases of the body
fighting an infection which might be causing undetectable but significant damage.
I have never seen any attempt to study the spectrum, hence my tentative conclusions.


<snip of things to be addressed if additional interest is shown>

> And: “A third vaccine dose might allow people who haven't been infected to
> achieve the benefits of hybrid immunity, says Matthieu Mahévas, an
> immunologist at the Necker Institute for Sick Children in Paris.”

Speaking of "third": the WHO director is very concerned about people in
the vaccine-producing countries getting third doses while some third world
countries have less than 10% having any vaccine at all.

<snip like the preceding>

>
> So get shots even after infection to knock this COVID monster out? Why rely
> solely on natural immunity?

Why pretend that this is an excuse for denying exceptions based on an anti-science power grab?

Why smear attacks on anti-science power grabs as "pointless"? Hemidactylus has done this,
and that is one of the reasons I have ceased addressing him directly.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Is "pro-plutocracy" a synonym of "not progressive" in the Mark Isaak lexicon?

The way I use it, "pro-plutocracy" is barking up the wrong tree in these days of crony capitalism;
in this case, Biden's cronyism towards Big Pharma. In Obama's administration, "Too Big to Fail" was a noteworthy feature.

I leave it to you to provide examples by Trump. I'll include one: going full speed ahead ("Operation Warp Speed," IIRC)
with tremendous financial support for speedy production of vaccines, especially the Pfizer and Moderna varieties.
This is something the Biden administration would dearly love for Americans to forget.


China is another case of crony capitalism where on the one hand, it calls itself "People's Republic of China"
and on the other, it calls its over-dominant party the "Communist" party.

Don't get me wrong. My criticism is moderated by my admiration for the way Deng Xiaoping deserves the title,
"Game-Changer of the Latter Half of the 20th Century" for the way he brought China out of the nightmare
world of Mao Zedong. His coming to power after being disgraced during the Cultural Revolution was,
I believe, a feat unprecedented in the history of the world, far outstripping the distinction of Zhou Enlai
being "the Anastas Mikoyan of China".

However, what we are seeing in China today is a retreat in the direction of Maoism.

> Science shows that masks are effective at
> lowering risks of infection.

It's a question of degree, where one draws the line between "effective" and "ineffective."
Do you have some studies to provide us with?

> So your source's credibility goes down in flames.

Says someone who utterly destroyed his credibility by libeling me with the
accusation that I want to take away basic human rights from gay people.

You whine every time I bring this up, but you've never shown any regrets for having done it.

>
> I am strongly inclined to favor your premise that previous infection
> with COVID-19 reduces the person's risk of future infection.

"reduces" is a no-brainer, and you are conceding next to nothing by hedging with "strongly inclined".

> The issue, though, is not whether it reduces infection, but whether it reduces
> spread.

The same issue bedevils vaccination, as the CDC implicitly concedes while avoiding
your equivocation "reduces".

>And whether it does so so effectively that adding a vaccine
> would not reduce spread significantly more. What does research indicate
> on those questions?

You tell me. I keep hitting stone walls when trying to find out the most basic things
about the pandemic.

For instance, the CDC first went with a study in NEJM that showed that optimum
benefits are conferred by having the second mRNA vaccine dose three weeks
after the first one, with a "window" of four days in both directions.

Then it came out with a claim that it is OK to delay it for six weeks, claiming
that "research" had "shown" it but never hinting at where the research
had been done, not even on its most thorough website for this kind of information.

>
> --
> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
> "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred
> to the presence of those who think they've found it." - Terry Pratchett

The latter seems to apply to that CDC doubling of the OK waiting period
for the second dose.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Although I am snipping jillery's personal remarks which have no identifiable
scientific content, I still address jillery in the second person frequently, as in most places below.

Sometimes I mark these snips, as below; sometimes not.

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 2:45:14 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 10:45:34 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Science is brought in by government when it is convenient to bring it in.

> >The same is true of talk.origins. It is convenient to bring in science when Trump needs to be bashed
> >as being anti-science. When Biden is in the hot seat, it is convenient for Hemidactylus to
> >call it "pointless" to be giving evidence of Biden being anti-science.

[unmarked snip by you restored in part:]
> > And, of course, [Hemidactylus is] ignoring the elephant in the room: Dr. Skoly being barred from medical practice

> > despite a very high level of the very antibodies that the CDC considers to be relevant.

[end of restoration]

Of course, you are ignoring the same elephant, jillery. You had to snip the above to
hide the fact.


<snip unsupported personal attack on Trump; since I have no dog in that fight, I invite you to belatedly provide support>

>
> Biden is not anti-science, His vaccine mandate does not make him
> anti-science.

Hence my use of "Anti-Science Streak" in the thread title, rather than an across-the-board condemnation.
The closest I come above is "evidence of".

It is not the mandate that I categorically call anti-science, but Biden's ignoring scientific evidence in not making reasonable exceptions.

I made this clear on the thread where I first brought up the issue. The following is taken from a
repost by me of something Hemidactylus snipped and called "pointless":

> > "More than 7,700 new cases of the virus have been detected during the
> > most recent wave starting in May, but just 72 of the confirmed cases were
> > reported in people who were known to have been infected previously – that
> > is, less than 1% of the new cases.
> > ...
> > "With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus,
> > the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were
> > already infected with COVID. By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated
> > were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after
> > natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of
> > Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave."
> > https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762

Here is the available data on the post from which this repost is taken:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/__JVq4HGFzI/m/Pfb8n8mfAQAJ
Re: mRNA vaccines changing DNA??
Oct 11, 2021, 7:10:11 PM

When Hemidactylus saw this repost, he lied about its existence and then snipped it again,
with the deceitful label "[snip irrelevancies]".


<snip libelous attack by jillery against me>

Space provided below for jillery to post a One Shade of Gray Meltdown on snips,
indiscriminately lumping snips by me of libelous comments by jillery with libelous snips by Hemidactylus of truthful comments.
.
.

.

Peter Nyikos

PS

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 13:45:50 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Although I am snipping jillery's personal remarks which have no identifiable
>scientific content, I still address jillery in the second person frequently, as in most places below.

Works for me. Thanks for the precedent.

<snip your remarks which have no identifiable scientific content>


Oopsie, nothing left. You never learn.

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:51:21 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I am no longer on speaking terms with Scott Chase, a.k.a. "Hemidactylus", so
>everything I write here is addressed to t.o. participants as a whole.
>
>On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:05:14 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 9:50:14 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> The scientific evidence is very strong that immunity conferred by having
>> >> recovered from Covid-19 is significantly better than that conferred by
>> >> vaccination.
>
>Nothing Hemidactylus wrote below addressed this directly.

Since I am a participant, part of the whole, I note that Scott Chase,
a.k.a. "Hemidactylus" actually posted several cites in this topic
which directly addresses that very point. OTOH and actually, you,
Peter Nyikos a.k.a "the peter" posted nothing which directly addressed
that very point. Which makes your comment above a transparent and
self-serving lie.

>> >> Yet the recovered cohort, a significant fraction now of the US
>> >> population, is completely ignored in every vaccine mandate that I have ever seen.
>> >>
>> >> Today I learned of a case that exposes the injustice of not waiting until the
>> >> evidence in the above paragraph has been accepted or rejected by the
>> >> notoriously slow CDC, but going full speed ahead with mandates that ignore it.
>
>No awareness of this issue was shown by Hemidactylus below.

Is your direct point here that Covid-19 creates predictable levels of
"natural" immunity? That's a scientific question.

Or is your point here that vaccine mandates don't include recovery
from Covid-19 as a valid reason for exclusion from vaccination
mandates? That's a question of policy and priorities.

These are separate questions which deserve separate discussions.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Since jillery is not replying directly to me, I am treating this post like I did posts
by both jillery and Hemidactylus until the two (very distinct from each other) policies went into effect this year.

No "good reason" given yet. And note, after mention of Boyd's name, the quotation
marks have disappeared.

> >> While a study from Israeli researchers shows natural immunity to be
> >> more protective than vaccine immunity, as reported by Bloomberg,
> >> findings from a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
> >> study suggest that full vaccination provides additional protection to
> >> those who have had COVID-19.

This in no way is a "good reason" for treating vaccinated people who
have never had infections with blatant favoritism over those who have recovered from Covid-19.
In fact, it smells of a "bait and switch" tactic.

> >>
> >> Objections based on a previous COVID-19 infection would have to be
> >> made through the reasonable accommodation request process,

Dr. Skoly been there, done that; punished without mercy despite jumping
through hoops that vaccinated people are exempted from. So much for the word "reasonable".

> >> Andrew Maunz, an attorney with Jackson Lewis in Pittsburgh,

Another attorney with a huge conflict of interest: money to be made through
giving advice on how to make a "request" sound "reasonable."

> >> and the employer should then follow its normal accommodation procedures to
> >> determine if the following applies:
> >>
> >> * The employee has a disability under the Americans with Disabilities
> >> Act that conflicts with the employment policy.

Bureaucracy in full blown action: "if you ain't listed as having one of the laundry
list of disabilities [Dr. Skoly's previous Bell’s palsy isn't on the list] then us lower echelon bureaucrats can't help you."

> >>
> >> * A reasonable accommodation can be provided without an undue hardship
> >> on the employer.

Typical bureaucratese.



Concluded in second reply to this post, to be done soon after I see that this one has posted.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Picking up where I left off on my preceding reply:

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 2:35:15 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 07:42:16 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
> >jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> In some cases, it would be difficult to know whether an employee had
> >> COVID-19, particularly if that person's infection occurred before

> >> tesng was available and was identified solely based on the presence

> >> of antibodies or self-reported symptoms, Boyd said. "Accordingly, we
> >> advise employers who require employees to be vaccinated not to
> >> distinguish between those who were previously infected and those who
> >> were not with regard to the vaccination protocol," she said.
> >>
> >> An employer that lets an employee bypass a vaccine mandate by claiming
> >> natural immunity from prior infection may be in the uncomfortable
> >> position of determining on a case-by-case basis whether the worker's
> >> claim is true, Boyd said. "Employers would have difficulty verifying
> >> previous infection."

If the employee provides plenty of documentation, would he be treated like Dr. Skoly anyway?
The quoted sentence at the end suggests that the answer is YES-- the employer
quoting it and saying "Sorry, I can't help you." That's how bureaucracy works.

> >> *****************************
> >>
> >More food for thought:

<snip urls whose contents are not explained>

> >And Moderna vs Pfizer showdown?
> >
> >https://www.businessinsider.com/moderna-vaccines-might-not-need-boosters-like-pfizer-2021-9

"might not" -- typical bureaucratese.

> >https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7038e1.htm
> >
> >The much touted Israeli study focused on Pfizer no?
> >
> >https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

IIRC that was the only vaccine available in Israel at the time.

More importantly, the ones who had recovered from Covid-19 were 6.7 times less likely
to contact it (again) than the vaccinated cohort. The "might need boosters" didn't seem
to apply to the "recovered":

"With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus,
the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were

already infected with COVID. ... with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of

Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave."
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762

> >And from that:
> >“Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a
> >single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant"

Nature of protection not specified. As I quoted in reply to a post by Hemidactylus,
another Israeli study found "additional protection" ONLY in asymptomatic infection rate.

<snip of things to be dealt with later, if still appropriate>


<snip of other things to be dealt with later this week, without conditions>

> Meanwhile, people who oppose vaccine mandates are escalating, by
> quitting their jobs,

Yes, but how many are subjected to the standard bureaucratic treatment
of "If you voluntarily resign from your job, we won't fire you, thereby
not compromising your chances of finding another job"?

> threatening violent opposition, and seceding from
> the Union. Really?

Empty rhetoric AFAIK, as opposed to actual violence by BLM
and Antifa in e.g. Portland, Oregon.

The only talk of secession that I take seriously is the desire of
a dozen or so eastern counties of Oregon to secede and join Idaho.
The problem with that plan is that Idaho isn't keen on all the increased
bureaucracy that all the adjustments would entail.

Bureaucracy: the ultimate form of too many cooks spoiling the broth.

> The right to risk a lingering death while exposing
> everyone around them to that same risk?

Not in the case of people who have recovered from Covid.
Look at that 0.0086% risk of getting it again, and a far less risk of dying from it.

Your scaremongering is on the level of some of the worst anti-vaxxers.
It's the zero tolerance of risk by the totalitarian-mentality Victoria government all over again,
heedless of the human cost of endless lockdowns. Including deaths from cancer, etc.
being diagnosed too late.

> Is that really an honorable
> principle, one worth falling on their sword, a hill worth dying for?
> Really?

Your rhetoric here reminds me of your abominable treatment of Ron Dean
for daring to make negative comments about you. It was as close to
a violation of what I call the Fifth Commandment of Talk.origins [for Overdogs like yourself]
as I have ever seen. Here is how it reads:

"Thou shalt not wish bodily harm on any t.o. participants, not even on people to whom thou art inhospitable."


Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

As an exercise in content analysis I’m going to do a keyword string search
on this post and compare it to Peter’s subsequent reply.

The string “mutation” appears 5 times in my post and “evolve” appears 3
times. Keep that in mind when I apply the same to Peter’s reply in a
separate post…

[*Hemidactylus*]

Ok I am applying a keyword string analysis to Peter’s reply:

“mutation” occurs once above (compared to 5 times in my post Peter replied
to). “evolve” occurs once above (compared to 3 times in my post Peter
replied to). That’s a very telling deletion of content right there that
carries over from a previous thread in interesting ways…

[*Hemidactylus*]

Let’s see…you bulldozed your way like a bull in a china shop oblivious to
the main topic introduced in that OP. As I had transitioned quite clearly:

“BUT, why couldn’t the various COVID vaccines just as any other antigen
based on a pathogenic organism, cause our immune system into “doing
Darwinism” by means of affinity maturation via somatic hypermutation? If
these vaccines are sufficient to launch affinity maturation then aren’t
they responsible for helping indirectly change somatic cell (lymphocyte)
DNA? And why would that be a big deal? It would scare me as much as
watching a sunset or paint dry.”

You butted in quite rudely rather late in the thread after quite nuanced
back and forth between knowledgable participants with:

“The OP was half-baked and I couldn't see anyone go into this matter at the
proper scientific depth in their wordy replies. It's like what we see
everywhere in the internet -- generalities that try to reassure us about
the extreme unlikelihood of your genome being altered”

As if you could judge what half-baked is given your continual avoidance of
the subject matter. My gist was somatic mutation in lymphocytes but I
branched off into other topics of interest from an immunological point of
view such as class-switching recombination.

So based on it being my thread and chosen topics your participation
detracted from the flow hence:

“You’re oblivious to what the OP was actually about and paper macheing over
that ignorance with a bunch of irrelevancies. Squirrel!”

And: “[snip pointless Nyikosian irrelevancies not germane to affinity
maturation or somatic hypermution… a huge transition in my thought totally
lost on clueless Peter]”

Did you ever deign to say anything meaningful or relevant about somatic
mutation in immunocytes in all this? If you did I sure missed anything
remotely relevant to that topic from you.

I even cited this article on this thread:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02795-x

With such intriguing stuff as: “There is some evidence that people who

received both jabs without previously being infected seem to be catching

up. Ellebedy’s team collected lymph-node samples from mRNA-vaccinated

individuals and found signs that some of their memory B cells triggered by
the vaccination were gaining mutations, up to 12 weeks after the second
dose, that enabled them to recognize diverse coronaviruses, including some
that cause common colds7.”

The significance of “gaining mutations” seems lost on you per my recent
keyword string analysis comparing your reply to my post. Does somatic
mutation scare you? Or are you oblivious to what it is?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 6:50:14 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 13:45:50 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Although I am snipping jillery's personal remarks which have no identifiable
> >scientific content,

Done below.

> > I still address jillery in the second person frequently, as in most places below.

That was then, because I had some scientific data to add to some marginally science-related things jillery posted.

In the post to which this is a reply, jillery did exactly what I suggested in the following comment:

[repost:]

Space provided below for jillery to post a One Shade of Gray Meltdown on snips,
indiscriminately lumping snips by me of libelous comments by jillery with libelous snips by Hemidactylus of truthful comments.
.
.

.

[end of repost]

The only "distinction without a difference" was that jillery did not do it in the space provided,
but snipped the provided space and then posted a mindless [1] One Shade of Gray Meltdown.

It was devoid of scientific content, so nothing of jillery's text is quoted here.


[1] It was worded in a virtually identical way as uncounted dozens of earlier snips over the years were worded,
complete with a shameless lie at the end [2].

[2] Some might even accuse jillery about lying on the preceding line about what she had snipped,
but since it is impossible to tell what fraction of jillery's snips was marked and what fraction was unmarked, I'm not going down that rabbit hole.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 16:13:47 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Picking up where I left off on my preceding reply:
>
>On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 2:35:15 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 07:42:16 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> In some cases, it would be difficult to know whether an employee had
>> >> COVID-19, particularly if that person's infection occurred before
>> >> tesng was available and was identified solely based on the presence
>> >> of antibodies or self-reported symptoms, Boyd said. "Accordingly, we
>> >> advise employers who require employees to be vaccinated not to
>> >> distinguish between those who were previously infected and those who
>> >> were not with regard to the vaccination protocol," she said.
>> >>
>> >> An employer that lets an employee bypass a vaccine mandate by claiming
>> >> natural immunity from prior infection may be in the uncomfortable
>> >> position of determining on a case-by-case basis whether the worker's
>> >> claim is true, Boyd said. "Employers would have difficulty verifying
>> >> previous infection."
>
>If the employee provides plenty of documentation, would he be treated like Dr. Skoly anyway?
>The quoted sentence at the end suggests that the answer is YES-- the employer
>quoting it and saying "Sorry, I can't help you." That's how bureaucracy works.

Dr. Skoly is being "treated" that way because he has refused to follow
protocols specified by legal and medical agencies. IIUC following
said protocols is something all licensed medical practitioners agreed
to do as a condition of their license. His case is not that of an
employee, and it's politicizing hyperbole for you to paint his case
that way.

Dr. Skoly chose to become a martyr for a really stupid cause. It's no
surprise that you promote it. Based on your expressed "reasoning",
you should also promote practicing homeopathy, psychic surgery,
voodoo, and other fraudulent medical practices.

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 16:13:47 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Picking up where I left off on my preceding reply:

More accurately, obfuscating the discussion into incoherence:

<snip to the only point I address here>

>> The right to risk a lingering death while exposing

>> everyone around them to that same risk? Is that really an honorable

>> principle, one worth falling on their sword, a hill worth dying for?
>> Really?
>

>Not in the case of people who have recovered from Covid.
>Look at that 0.0086% risk of getting it again, and a far less risk of dying from it.

Cite. If you got it from your one cited article, I would challenge
its veracity.

The larger point is, it's difficult to prove who actually recovered
from Covid-19, as contrasted to those who think they had Covid-19 as
contrasted to those who pretend they had Covid-19. Documenting
vaccinations is relatively straightforward.

>Your scaremongering is on the level of some of the worst anti-vaxxers.
>It's the zero tolerance of risk by the totalitarian-mentality Victoria government all over again,
>heedless of the human cost of endless lockdowns. Including deaths from cancer, etc.
>being diagnosed too late.

Your politicized hyperbole would embarrass a rational person. That
you invoke endless lockdowns is the ultimate in mindless made-up
crappery. To the contrary, it's idiots like you, Dr. Skoly, and other
right-wing toadies, who are the enablers of increasing Covid-19 cases.

>Your rhetoric here reminds me of your abominable treatment of Ron Dean
>for daring to make negative comments about you. It was as close to
>a violation of what I call the Fifth Commandment of Talk.origins [for Overdogs like yourself]
>as I have ever seen. Here is how it reads:
>
>"Thou shalt not wish bodily harm on any t.o. participants, not even on people to whom thou art inhospitable."

Once again you show there's no crap you won't make up to obfuscate a
topic. And as usual, you don't even try to back up your lies, and
it's almost certain you never will.

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 18:46:43 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

No answer. No surprise. The peter is in total mindless spam mode.

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:00:57 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"

<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 6:50:14 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 13:45:50 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Although I am snipping jillery's personal remarks which have no identifiable
>> >scientific content,
>
>Done below.

You conveniently left in your personal remarks which have no
identifiable scientific content. I fixed it for you, except for the
following:

>[1] It was worded in a virtually identical way as uncounted dozens of earlier snips over the years were worded,
>complete with a shameless lie at the end [2].
>
>[2] Some might even accuse jillery about lying on the preceding line about what she had snipped,
>but since it is impossible to tell what fraction of jillery's snips was marked and what fraction was unmarked, I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

It would be trivially easy for anyone who cared to go to previous
posts in this thread and see for themselves you are lying about me.

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 20:55:03 -0500, *Hemidactylus*

<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip the peter's lying made-up crap>

There's a saying, which goes in paraphrase:

If facts support your argument, pound on the facts.
If logic supports your argument, point on the logic.
If neither facts nor logic support your argument, pound on the table.

Clearly the peter completely skips over both facts and logic, and
jumps straight into pounding on the table.

[Glenn]

Beats me how you can live with yourself.

[Glenn]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 8:40:14 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 20:55:03 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
> >peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip the peter's lying made-up crap>

snip dickheads lying made-up crap

Oops, nothing here to see.

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 20:37:14 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 8:00:14 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:00:57 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 6:50:14 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 13:45:50 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Although I am snipping jillery's personal remarks which have no identifiable
>> >> >scientific content,
>> >
>> >Done below.
>> You conveniently left in your personal remarks which have no
>> identifiable scientific content. I fixed it for you, except for the
>> following:
>> >[1] It was worded in a virtually identical way as uncounted dozens of earlier snips over the years were worded,
>> >complete with a shameless lie at the end [2].
>> >
>> >[2] Some might even accuse jillery about lying on the preceding line about what she had snipped,
>> >but since it is impossible to tell what fraction of jillery's snips was marked and what fraction was unmarked, I'm not going down that rabbit hole.
>> It would be trivially easy for anyone who cared to go to previous
>> posts in this thread and see for themselves you are lying about me.
>> --
>Beats me how you can live with yourself.

And here's where Glenn goes out of his way to express his mindless
opinions about me.

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 20:50:34 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

Ok polly.

[Glenn]

You must live a very sheltered life.

[Glenn]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 9:05:14 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 20:50:34 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 8:40:14 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 20:55:03 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
> >> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> <snip the peter's lying made-up crap>
> >snip dickheads lying made-up crap
> >
> >Oops, nothing here to see.
snip dickheads lying made-up crap

Still nothing to see here.

[Mark Isaak]

It means "in favor of plutocracy." Your source is not a science source;
it is an organization that supports policies to make the rich richer at
the expense of others.

>> Science shows that masks are effective at
>> lowering risks of infection.
>
> It's a question of degree, where one draws the line between "effective" and "ineffective."
> Do you have some studies to provide us with?

Do you honestly doubt it?

- Howard et al., "An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19",
PNAS 118(4), https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014564118
- Abboah-Offei et al., "A rapid review of the use of face mask in
preventing the spread of COVID-19", _International J. of Nurs. Studies
Adv._ 3.
- Gapen et al., "Assessing the effectiveness of alternative measures
to slow the spread of COVID-19 in the United States", _Covid Economics_
40: 46.

You could find more if you were interested in looking.

>> So your source's credibility goes down in flames.
>
> Says someone who utterly destroyed his credibility by libeling me with the
> accusation that I want to take away basic human rights from gay people.
>
> You whine every time I bring this up, but you've never shown any regrets for having done it.

You cite a political source which gets other basic science wrong,
science which should be close to obvious. And rather than find good
science or support your source, you throw off irrelevant accusations.
Neither you nor your source have any credibility.

>> I am strongly inclined to favor your premise that previous infection
>> with COVID-19 reduces the person's risk of future infection.
>
> "reduces" is a no-brainer, and you are conceding next to nothing by hedging with "strongly inclined".
>
>
>> The issue, though, is not whether it reduces infection, but whether it reduces
>> spread.
>
> The same issue bedevils vaccination, as the CDC implicitly concedes while avoiding
> your equivocation "reduces".
>
>
>> And whether it does so so effectively that adding a vaccine
>> would not reduce spread significantly more. What does research indicate
>> on those questions?
>
> You tell me. I keep hitting stone walls when trying to find out the most basic things
> about the pandemic.

"Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given
a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the

Delta variant."
from: Gazit S, Shlezinger R, Perez G, Lotan R, Peretz A, Ben-Tov A,

Cohen D, Muhsen K, Chodick G, Patalon T. “Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural
immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough
infections”. medRxiv August 24,2021.
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415

(Does that reference look familiar? I copied it from one of your posts.)

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 21:09:49 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 9:05:14 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 20:50:34 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 8:40:14 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 20:55:03 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
>> >> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> <snip the peter's lying made-up crap>
>> >snip dickheads lying made-up crap
>> >
>> >Oops, nothing here to see.
>snip dickheads lying made-up crap
>Still nothing to see here.

[*Hemidactylus*]

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> The scientific evidence is very strong that immunity conferred by having
>> recovered from Covid-19 is significantly better than that conferred by
>> vaccination. Yet the recovered cohort, a significant fraction now of the US
>> population, is completely ignored in every vaccine mandate that I have ever seen.
>>
>> Today I learned of a case that exposes the injustice of not waiting until the
>> evidence in the above paragraph has been accepted or rejected by the
>> notoriously slow CDC, but going full speed ahead with mandates that ignore it.
>>
>> It involves Dr. Stephen Skoly, a well-known oral and maxillofacial surgeon in
>> Rhode Island. The gist of his situation is summarized in the following
>> excerpts from a recent interview.
>>
>> Interviewer: Dr. Skoly, let’s begin with you. You are a well-known surgeon in
>> Rhode Island and you’ve recently been ordered to cease care by the state
>> Department of Health because you objected to the health care worker
>> vaccine mandate. Can you explain to us what’s going on in your situation
>> and what you currently face today?
>>
>> Stephen Skoly: "Sure. I received a compliance order on Friday, Oct. 1, to
>> prohibit in-person care for my patients and the other patients that I
>> would see throughout the state. ...
>> The COVID mandate was issued in the middle of August with a charge of

> Well:
>
> https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination
>
> “The data is clear: Natural immunity is not better. The COVID-19 vaccines
> create more effective and longer-lasting immunity than natural immunity
> from infection.
> More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective
> antibodies
> Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity
> Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity
> plus vaccination”
>
> “"Natural immunity can be spotty. Some people can react vigorously and get
> a great antibody response. Other people don't get such a great response,"
> says infectious diseases expert Mark Rupp, MD. "Clearly, vaccine-induced
> immunity is more standardized and can be longer-lasting."”
>
> “Some people who get COVID-19 receive no protection from reinfection –
> their natural immunity is nonexistent. A recent study found that 36% of
> COVID-19 cases didn't result in development of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The
> people had different levels of illness – most had moderate disease, but
> some were asymptomatic and some experienced severe COVID-19.”
>
> The article cites: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article
>
> And: “What about that Israeli study suggesting natural immunity is
> stronger? Infectious diseases expert James Lawler, MD, MPH, FIDSA,
> carefully evaluates the study design of the retrospective Maccabi Health
> System study in his Aug. 31 briefing. In the briefing, he identifies two
> concerning sources of error that were not corrected for: survivorship bias
> and selection bias.”
>
> So…I dunno. If I had survived COVID I would still get both jabs as I would
> probably want to reduce my chances of going through that again as much as
> possible. Maybe evidence will show vaccine mandates unnecessary. Or maybe
> uncertainty of immunity conferred by vaccination or how long it lasts will
> make vaccines still necessary, at least as natural immunity could wane. And
> shots after infections may give one even better immunity than the viral
> infection or jabs alone.
>
> How long will immunity from infection last? If someone was infected early
> in 2020 should we trust they are still immune? Do they get an exemption
> forever?
>
>
The deafening sounds of crickets chirping…

[Glenn]

Why should anyone get any "exemption"? The flu kills maybe 50 thousand people in any given year in the US, and also does significant harm to many more, adversely affects the work force and so on, so shouldn't the federal government require vaccines be taken by all, with enforcement? Or do you think that is a paltry number not worth considering in comparison with say a million deaths a year, and that we can afford to let 50 thousand die and many more hospitalized, or sick and not working, passing the virus(s) on to others?

Do you insist that everyone, including healthy young people get a compulsory flu shot once a year? Twice a year?
Is it ok with you that the government allows us to not wear masks in the flu "season"?

> >
> >
> The deafening sounds of crickets chirping…

Go see a doctor about that. He may be able to direct you to another that might be able to help.

[jillery]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:44:00 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

In 2020, Covid-19 killed over 345,000 people in the U.S., making it
the third leading cause, beat out only by heart disease and cancer.
"the flu" doesn't even come close. So yes, its greater fatality
changes priorities. Most adults I know understand that.

Also, there was a good chance strict pandemic practices would have
prevented Covid-19 from becoming endemic like "the flu" already is.
Thanks to a prior pandemic of village idiots, that possibility becomes
more unlikely by the day.

[Glenn]

I'm not surprised to hear that.
Covid to date has killed over 700 thousand people in the US. The number of killed below the age of 60 is roughly the number of average deaths in the US due to the flu. Apparently most people you know do not have a problem with masks not being required for everyone because of the flu. Most people I know don't place priorities for any number of who lives and who dies. Most people I know are sensitive to others when they get sick with the flu, even if they are unsure they have the flu, especially about being around older people, and people with health issues. They don't need the government locking them up when they don't wear a mask, and they don't need to take a flu shot, yet many do. It is their choice.

You've avoided the questions. So I'll ask another. Heart disease, as well as cancer, is to an extent preventable. What priority do you place on prevention in those cases? Do you insist that the government make laws that punish people for eating at McDonalds? That smoke?

Your "priorities" are almost certainly all misplaced priorities. Do you include problems related to COVID such as mental health, education, etc. in your priorities? Do you believe these problems are a result of fear of dying of COVID?

>
> Also, there was a good chance strict pandemic practices would have
> prevented Covid-19 from becoming endemic like "the flu" already is.
> Thanks to a prior pandemic of village idiots, that possibility becomes
> more unlikely by the day.
> --

You're dreaming. I expect no less from a 'never trumper". "Endemic" is not "epidemic", and even the Chinese communist government with complete control over everything in their country couldn't, or didn't contain COVID in a specific area. And the difference between epidemic and pandemic is only a matter of the number of people involved. The only way the US could have stopped COVID in the US would have been for the CDC to have done a perfect job of tracking and isolating initial infections entering the country, and for the government powers to lock down all entry to the country for an indeterminate period of time.

Now it's here, and all over the world. No one has been able to "kill it off". You have absolutely no legitimate reason or evidence to support a claim that it is possible to do so, or to contain it to a certain area. Barring of course, future medical technologies, which don't currently exist.

[jillery]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 13:45:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Nonsense. Every day people take risks, both in the home and out. They
use products which kill when used incorrectly and/or carelessly.
People die in house fires started from electrical shorts or leaking
gas lines. They drive in and/or walk through traffic, which daily
kills thousands of people in the U.S. They mix with total strangers,
some who carry guns, knives, and other devices designed to kill other
people. People accept these risks, knowing that some people will die
from them, because they consider the benefits worth the risk. The
only way to be completely safe from all harm is to be dead.

>Most people I know are sensitive to others when they get sick with the flu, even if they are unsure they have the flu, especially about being around older people, and people with health issues. They don't need the government locking them up when they don't wear a mask, and they don't need to take a flu shot, yet many do. It is their choice.
>
>You've avoided the questions.

Your questions avoided the issues under discussion.

>So I'll ask another. Heart disease, as well as cancer, is to an extent preventable. What priority do you place on prevention in those cases? Do you insist that the government make laws that punish people for eating at McDonalds? That smoke?

Heart disease and cancer are not contagious. Your argument is a
strawman that pandemic mitigation is the same as government
micro-management.

>Your "priorities" are almost certainly all misplaced priorities. Do you include problems related to COVID such as mental health, education, etc. in your priorities? Do you believe these problems are a result of fear of dying of COVID?

Since you handwave away the clear and present danger of death and
disability from Covid-19, there's no point in you even mentioning less
obvious effects.

>> Also, there was a good chance strict pandemic practices would have
>> prevented Covid-19 from becoming endemic like "the flu" already is.
>> Thanks to a prior pandemic of village idiots, that possibility becomes
>> more unlikely by the day.
>> --
>You're dreaming. I expect no less from a 'never trumper". "Endemic" is not "epidemic", and even the Chinese communist government with complete control over everything in their country couldn't, or didn't contain COVID in a specific area. And the difference between epidemic and pandemic is only a matter of the number of people involved. The only way the US could have stopped COVID in the US would have been for the CDC to have done a perfect job of tracking and isolating initial infections entering the country, and for the government powers to lock down all entry to the country for an indeterminate period of time.
>
>Now it's here, and all over the world. No one has been able to "kill it off". You have absolutely no legitimate reason or evidence to support a claim that it is possible to do so, or to contain it to a certain area. Barring of course, future medical technologies, which don't currently exist.

<cough> smallpox <cough>

The *only* reason your chances of dying from any viral disease is so
low in the U.S., and the *major* reason your chances of contracting
bacterial diseases is so low in the U.S., are because of public
sanitation, health and safety programs and policies. Pandemic
mitigation is part of that.

And since you mention Trump, it is ironic that he and his toadies
continue to oppose countermeasures against Covid-19, while at the same
time objecting to Haitian refugees in part because they might have
AIDS.

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/19/21 9:43 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]

Of possible interest to followers of this thread, a Nature article just
announced:
"Hybrid immunity improves B cells and antibodies against SARS-CoV-2
variants", _Nature_ 20 Oct. 2021.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04117-7

I don't have access to the full article. Based on the abstract, the
researchers compared memory B cells from people who had been infected
and later vaccinated with those from naive people (which, I assume,
means neither infected nor vaccinated). I don't see any comparison with
vaccine or prior infection alone, so I'm not sure what the point of the
article is, beyond the obvious "something x2 is better than nothing."

[broger...@gmail.com]

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emanuele-Andreano/publication/353857288_Hybrid_immunity_improves_B_cell_frequency_antibody_potency_and_breadth_against_SARS-CoV-2_and_variants_of_concern/links/611910a51ca20f6f862310ed/Hybrid-immunity-improves-B-cell-frequency-antibody-potency-and-breadth-against-SARS-CoV-2-and-variants-of-concern.pdf

This is a link to the pre-print.

The comparison is between the immune responses of people who were vaccinated and who either did (5 subjects) or did not (5 subjects) have a prior history of covid infection before being vaccinated. The interesting thing is that not only is the intensity of the immune response greater after vaccination for those who had prior covid infection, the response is also more cross-reactive with a variety of covid variants. Not terribly surprising, but good to know. There have been a couple of other papers that found similar results.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I wonder if hybrid immunity could work in the other direction where a fully
vaccinated individual gets exposed once or multiple times to strain(s) of
SARS-CoV-2 and has asymptomatic or breakthrough infection. Would that
subsequent exposure after vaccination result in a form of enhanced hybrid
immunity? Then what happens after a subsequent post-infection booster? I
imagine in the coming several years there will be more people matching
these criteria.

For some reason something intuitive I can’t fully grasp keeps pinging me
with the notion of antigenic original sin:

https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00056-21

Would that be like learning something in an idiosyncratic manner that
impacts trying to learn subsequent material (bad analogy)?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> On 10/19/21 9:43 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> [...]
>
> Of possible interest to followers of this thread, a Nature article just
> announced:
> "Hybrid immunity improves B cells and antibodies against SARS-CoV-2
> variants", _Nature_ 20 Oct. 2021.
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04117-7
>
> I don't have access to the full article. Based on the abstract, the
> researchers compared memory B cells from people who had been infected
> and later vaccinated with those from naive people (which, I assume,
> means neither infected nor vaccinated). I don't see any comparison with
> vaccine or prior infection alone, so I'm not sure what the point of the
> article is, beyond the obvious "something x2 is better than nothing."
>

Wouldn’t hybrid immunity make a compelling case for COVID recovered people
to not rely on “natural immunity”, especially if there’s uncertainty in
their ability to fight a subsequent exposure? The enhanced “super” immunity
aspect would convince me. YMMV.

Amongst the vaccine hesitant I wonder if “natural immunity” is doing a
vague double duty as innate immunity and/or immunity acquired from COVID
survival. I hear people brag of strong immune systems or how vaccines will
melt down their immune systems or other stuff all over the place.

https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/immune-disorders/biology-of-the-immune-system/innate-immunity

“Innate (natural) immunity is so named because it is present at birth and
does not have to be learned through exposure to an invader.”

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/immunity-types.htm

“Natural immunity is acquired from exposure to the disease organism through
infection with the actual disease.”

Ok.

[broger...@gmail.com]

I'm sure those questions will get answered in the coming months. There are enough breakthrough infections that it should be possible to compare immune responses in breakthrough infections to those in infections in the unvaccinated.

>
> For some reason something intuitive I can’t fully grasp keeps pinging me
> with the notion of antigenic original sin:
>
> https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00056-21
>
> Would that be like learning something in an idiosyncratic manner that
> impacts trying to learn subsequent material (bad analogy)?

Here's a nice review of "antigenic original sin," a phenomenon that probably would not have gotten as much attention as it has without the catchy name.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Found this:

https://www.jimmunol.org/content/202/2/335

Complicated but seems antigen imprinting is a better general label.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 1:40:14 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 20:46:52 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 8:10:14 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> >> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 9:50:14 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > The scientific evidence is very strong that immunity conferred by having
> >> > recovered from Covid-19 is significantly better than that conferred by
> >> > vaccination. Yet the recovered cohort, a significant fraction now of the US
> >> > population, is completely ignored in every vaccine mandate that I have ever seen.
> >> >
> >> > Today I learned of a case that exposes the injustice of not waiting until the
> >> > evidence in the above paragraph has been accepted or rejected by the
> >> > notoriously slow CDC, but going full speed ahead with mandates that ignore it.
> >> >
> >> > It involves Dr. Stephen Skoly, a well-known oral and maxillofacial surgeon in
> >> > Rhode Island. The gist of his situation is summarized in the following excerpts from a recent interview.
> >> >
> >> > Interviewer: Dr. Skoly, let’s begin with you. You are a well-known surgeon in
> >> > Rhode Island and you’ve recently been ordered to cease care by the state
> >> > Department of Health because you objected to the health care worker
> >> > vaccine mandate. Can you explain to us what’s going on in your situation and what you currently face today?
> >> >
> >> > Stephen Skoly: "Sure. I received a compliance order on Friday, Oct. 1, to
> >> > prohibit in-person care for my patients and the other patients that I would see throughout the state. ...
> >> > The COVID mandate was issued in the middle of August with a charge of
> >> > mandated vaccinations for health care workers by Oct. 1.

> >> Dr. Skoly also serves as chairman of the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity.
> >> Its president, Mike Stenhouse, participated on the interview. The Center
> >> has recently produced a policy brief titled “Natural Immunity Should Be Included as a Vaccine Exemption.”
> >> https://rifreedom.org/2021/09/natural-immunity-should-be-a-vaccine-exemption/
> >>
> >> The word "brief" is appropriate. Right now it seems to be only indirectly relevant to an ongoing
> >> lawsuit against the State of Rhode Island, against a mask mandate in the public schools;
> >> but it would obviously be directly relevant to any lawsuit against the vaccine mandate.
> >>
> >> In the words of Stenhouse: "What’s different about the court case with the parents—we call it the “parents united lawsuit”—who are going against school mask mandates, and what will be different in Doc Skoly’s hearing is the argument is not going to be so much on the power of the government versus the rights of the people, it’s going to be attacking the very medical basis that the government is using for these mandates.
> >>
> >> "In the school mask mandate trial, they’re arguing that there is no emergency among kids; and masks, even if there was, are not the solution. Science says that they are ineffective."
> >>

> >> And science says that natural immunity is effective. Tomorrow I discuss the scientific evidence in the brief,
> >> and also elsewhere.
> >>
> >This has nothing to do with science. Never let a good pandemic go to waste. It's about control, money and power. Ideology only when it can be fit in.

> Not sure why you think ideology should be exempted from science, but
> the following is one example where ideology is fit in:

It's not part of ideology, but of religious beliefs being recognized in the way
the First Amendment to the US Constitution recognizes it.

And the US Supreme Court keeps taking the freedom of religion and speech
clause more seriously than almost any other country in the world does the
corresponding part of its Constitution. Certainly more seriously than Canada and the UK.

Granted, few make their lack of seriousness as clear as did the "Constitution of Democratic Kampuchea"
during the totalitarian Khmer Rouge regime:

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

Worship and Religion

Article 20

Every citizen of Cambodia has the right to worship according to any religion
and the right not to worship according to any religion.

All reactionary religions which are detrimental to Democratic Cambodia and the Cambodian people
are strictly forbidden.


> <https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx>
>
> <https://tinyurl.com/72mc3j7w>
> ************************************
> Although exemptions vary from state to state, all school immunization
> laws grant exemptions to children for medical reasons.

But not the reason that is the focus of this thread: natural immunity that
comes from having recovered from Covid-19, and which strong evidence shows
it to be superior to vaccination when it comes to future bouts with the disease.


> There are 44
> states and Washington D.C. that grant religious exemptions for people
> who have religious objections to immunizations. Currently, 15 states
> allow philosophical exemptions for children whose parents object to
> immunizations because of personal, moral or other beliefs.
> ***********************************
>
> Not sure how rational it is to rely on God sorting out his own.

You are alluding to a quote whose source remains unknown; the usual
source given has been discredited.

More importantly perhaps, you disbelieve the only thing that makes the quote rational:
life after death, in the hands of a just and merciful supernatural entity.


> God does a poor job of it during other natural disasters.

From your supremely confident atheistic POV.


Just wondering: do you think the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea
did a good job of sorting out what kind of religion should be tolerated?

And, do you think anyone asking for a religious exemption subscribes to a reactionary religion,
detrimental to the USA and the people of the USA?


Peter Nyikos

. . . . . . . . QUOTE OF THE DAY . . . . . . .
"We shall show mercy, but we shall not ask for it."
-- Winston Churchill

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 2:35:15 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 07:42:16 -0500, *Hemidactylus*

> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote things I deleted, having dealt with them earlier.
>
> >jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 18:48:27 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"

> >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The scientific evidence is very strong that immunity conferred by having
> >>> recovered from Covid-19 is significantly better than that conferred by
> >>> vaccination. Yet the recovered cohort, a significant fraction now of the US
> >>> population, is completely ignored in every vaccine mandate that I have ever seen.
> >>>
> >>> Today I learned of a case that exposes the injustice of not waiting until the
> >>> evidence in the above paragraph has been accepted or rejected by the
> >>> notoriously slow CDC, but going full speed ahead with mandates that ignore it.

<snip for focus>

Dr. Stephen Skoly, denied the right to practice medicine in Rhode Island, where he

has his practice, said:
> >>> "You either have an exemption because you have a severe allergic
> >>> reaction or basically you’ve developed some type of myocardial problem
> >>> secondary to the vaccination. ... I actually recovered from COVID—I got
> >>> COVID in December of 2020, pretty sick for a few days...
> >>> ...
> >>> I have been following my antibodies since that time and as recently as
> >>> last week have quite a high level of COVID-19 spike protein IgG, which
> >>> is the antibody for the recovery of my process. And it’s given me a
> >>> pretty robust naturally acquired immunity and probably, and the
> >>> literature is suggesting, that I might have five times the antibodies
> >>> that a fully vaccinated person might have."
> >>> --https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/10/18/this-doctor-opposes-covid-vaccine-mandate-now-his-state-wont-let-him-practice-medicine/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Biden's one-size-fits-all mandate makes no exception for the recovered
> >>> cohort, despite the scientific evidence, and neither has any other that
> >>> I have read about. Most of the ones I have read about do not make
> >>> exception for weekly testing for the coronavirus, like Biden's does; the
> >>> one by the Rhode Island Department of Health obviously does not.
> >>>
> >>> Is the blind eye this department turns towards Dr. Skoly's very robust
> >>> antibody level for the spike protein [1] typical of these mandates,
> >>> including Biden's? I'd welcome any news to the contrary from readers.

So far, I haven't seen a single example.

> >>> [1] This is the ONLY antibody whose production is stimulated by the Pfizer
> >>> and Moderna vacines. Yet it stands to reason that exposure to the full virus
> >>> should stimulate a number of different kinds of antibodies.
> >>> Dr. Skoly doesn't seem to be trying to ascertain their levels -- why
> >>> bother going to the trouble, eh?

<snip of things I have dealt with in earlier posts>


> Whether from prior infection, or from vaccine, it's not surprising
> that the strength of the immune response wanes over time. The immune
> system tends to forget unless it's reminded.

A moot issue in the light of what I quoted from Dr. Skoly above.

And here is a study showing that natural immunity from having recovered
is more long-lasting than that due to vaccination.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210915/Natural-SARS-CoV-2-infection-induces-more-durable-immunity-than-vaccination.aspx#commentblock
Excerpts:
The findings revealed that the durability of antibody response was highest upon natural SARS-CoV-2 infection, with preservation of 60 to 80% of peak antibody levels for up to 220 days post-symptom onset. In contrast, the highest magnitude of antibody response was observed in COVID-19 recovered individuals who had received the first vaccine dose. Compared to COVID-19 recovered individuals, vaccinated individuals with or without vaccination showed a relatively higher peak antibody level. In fully vaccinated SARS-CoV-2 naïve individuals, the antibody levels after 134 days of second vaccination reduced to the levels observed in unvaccinated COVID-19 recovered individuals after 220 days of symptom onset.
...
Importantly, a significantly higher neutralization efficacy against all tested variants (alpha, beta, gamma, and delta) was observed in unvaccinated COVID-19 recovered individuals than in vaccinated SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals. A comparable neutralization potency against the delta variant was observed in COVID-19 recovered individuals and first dose-vaccinated naïve individuals. However, a significant reduction in neutralization potency was observed after the second vaccine dose. This finding indicates that mRNA vaccine-induced cross-reactivity is lower than that induced by natural infection.

The original research paper, which I haven't had the time to read yet:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.09.459504v1.full

> And new variants are
> regularly introduced into the environment. So duration isn't a
> relevant issue wrt vaccine mandates for anybody.

Perhaps about half a year after today. Applied to today, your claim
is a classic case of GIGO based on ignorance.


<snip of rabble-rousing delusional comment by you with which I have already dealt; go ahead and repost it if you didn't comprehend my first dealing>

Peter Nyikos

. . . . . . . . QUOTE OF THE DAY . . . . . . .
"We shall show mercy, but we shall not ask for it."
-- Winston Churchill

Remark: This is actually the quote of the day for today in a one-leaf-per-day calendar printed by
American Health Imaging

[jillery]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 12:54:31 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

><snip of rabble-rousing delusional comment by you with which I have already dealt; go ahead and repost it if you didn't comprehend my first dealing>

You missed some. Let me fix it for you.

<flush>

Now it smells better.

[jillery]

>> <https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx>
>>
>> <https://tinyurl.com/72mc3j7w>
>> ************************************
>> Although exemptions vary from state to state, all school immunization

>> laws grant exemptions to children for medical reasons. There are 44

>> states and Washington D.C. that grant religious exemptions for people
>> who have religious objections to immunizations. Currently, 15 states
>> allow philosophical exemptions for children whose parents object to
>> immunizations because of personal, moral or other beliefs.
>> ***********************************
>

>It's not part of ideology, but of religious beliefs being recognized in the way
>the First Amendment to the US Constitution recognizes it.

For purposes of vaccine exemption, there's no difference between
religions and other ideologies. The U.S. Constitution does not give
religions absolute autonomy from regulation.

>And the US Supreme Court keeps taking the freedom of religion and speech
>clause more seriously than almost any other country in the world does the
>corresponding part of its Constitution. Certainly more seriously than Canada and the UK.

<the following mindless noise left unaltered for documentation
purposes>

>Granted, few make their lack of seriousness as clear as did the "Constitution of Democratic Kampuchea"
>during the totalitarian Khmer Rouge regime:
>
>CHAPTER FIFTEEN
>
>Worship and Religion
>
>Article 20
>
>Every citizen of Cambodia has the right to worship according to any religion
>and the right not to worship according to any religion.
>
>All reactionary religions which are detrimental to Democratic Cambodia and the Cambodian people
>are strictly forbidden.
>

>But not the reason that is the focus of this thread: natural immunity that
>comes from having recovered from Covid-19, and which strong evidence shows
>it to be superior to vaccination when it comes to future bouts with the disease.

The "focus" of this thread is your conflation of employee exemptions
with a case of a doctor violating medical and legal policies and
procedures on which his medical license is contingent.

>> Not sure how rational it is to rely on God sorting out his own.
>
>You are alluding to a quote whose source remains unknown; the usual
>source given has been discredited.

Incorrect. It's a reference to religious groups who claim God will
protect them from the pandemic.

>More importantly perhaps, you disbelieve the only thing that makes the quote rational:
>life after death, in the hands of a just and merciful supernatural entity.

Either learn how to read minds, or learn how to read English.
Pretending you do either makes you sound really stupid.

>> God does a poor job of it during other natural disasters.
>
>From your supremely confident atheistic POV.

Since you challenge the veracity of my comment, cite any authoritative
study which shows survivors of natural disasters are more religious
than those who died. Good luck with that.

>Just wondering: do you think the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea
>did a good job of sorting out what kind of religion should be tolerated?

Just wondering: do you think you will ever stop asking mindless
questions?

>And, do you think anyone asking for a religious exemption subscribes to a reactionary religion,
>detrimental to the USA and the people of the USA?

Give an example of what you think is a "reactionary religion" in the
USA.

[*Hemidactylus*]

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> The original research paper, which I haven't had the time to read yet:
> https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.09.459504v1.full
>

“This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review”

I have said I dunno if immunity acquired by infection is sufficient versus
vaccination. Have you more confidence? If so why? And are you arguing from
or towards your conclusion?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 11:40:14 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 8:00:14 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:00:57 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> > <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 6:50:14 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 13:45:50 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> > >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Although I am snipping jillery's personal remarks which have no identifiable
> > >> >scientific content,
> > >
> > >Done below.

> > You conveniently left in your personal remarks which have no
> > identifiable scientific content.

Jillery is ignoring a huge difference between us: she could adopt the same policy
towards me, but does not: it would cramp her style too much.

And so, she sporadically behaves in this way when it suits her and is her
usual self when she does not,

> > I fixed it for you, except for the
> > following:
> > >[1] It was worded in a virtually identical way as uncounted dozens of earlier snips over the years were worded,
> > >complete with a shameless lie at the end [2].
> > >
> > >[2] Some might even accuse jillery about lying on the preceding line about what she had snipped,
> > >but since it is impossible to tell what fraction of jillery's snips was marked and what fraction was unmarked, I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

> > It would be trivially easy for anyone who cared to go to previous
> > posts in this thread and see for themselves you are lying about me.

The above is yet another one of hundreds of occasions that jillery covers previous lies with new ones.


Turning to the simple one-liner that you wrote, Glenn, I am fascinated by how much there is hidden behind it:

> Beats me how you can live with yourself.

I like the way you turn one of Ron O's most libelous and frequent phrases into a sincere one by yourself, Glenn.


You may have missed it, but back in 1993, jillery prostituted her integrity for Hemidactylus's buddy
Ron O almost as fulsomely as she did for Hemidactylus himself on the thread "Re: mRNA vaccines changing DNA??" this month.

It was on a thread on turtle genome and ancestry. When I gave a fully on-topic scientific treatment
of Ron O's OP, Ron O completely lost interest in his own on-topic-for-t.o. topic and never showed
any awareness of it it again.

Instead, he demanded that I resume dealing with his rabid personal attacks on me in other threads.
The demand was so extreme that Burkhard *plonked* Ron O and, for all I know, may never have
unkillfiled him since.

I then told Ron O that I refused to do that on "his" thread and said he'd just have to wait for a while before
I returned to any personal clashes with him. Ron O then revealed what a crybaby he was by
shedding oceans of crocodile tears to jillery (who joined the thread very soon after my reply) about
how mean I supposedly kept being to him. I totally ignored this phoney baloney and jillery's
equally phoney "defense" of Ron O.

Others didn't. Back then, there were several people with more integrity than either jillery or Ron O, who
encouraged them to get back on topic and were appreciative of the way I kept posting about it
and sticking to it despite the torrents of abuse Ron O and jillery were heaping on me in reply to each other.

Among them were Roger Shrubber, who wound up *plonking* both jillery and Ron O, despite his
frequent earlier attacks on me, and the largely honorable Richard Norman, who lent stability
to sci.bio.paleontology, especially from mid-2015 until his unannounced disappearance from
both t.o. and s.b.p. in 2017.

But that's another story. One more thing that took place on that thread that is worth mentioning now:
jillery candidly revealed to Ron O that she was backing him more to help herself than to help him.

I believe that is also true of the way jillery went to the mat for Hemidactylus earlier this month, and
to a far greater extent than I ever saw before, to boot.

Peter Nyikos

. . . . . . . . QUOTE OF THE DAY . . . . . . .
"We shall show mercy, but we shall not ask for it."
-- Winston Churchill

Remark: in this godforsaken forum, asking for mercy is a sign of weakness. As one real-life prostitute
once said, "It's the nice guys that get rolled 'cause I figure they're weak."

[jillery]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:56:15 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The above is yet another one of hundreds of occasions that jillery covers previous lies with new ones.

That's what you do, liar.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Failure to specify alleged "rich" people makes your comment meaningless.
Even you aren't so far gone as to accuse the millions of Americans who have recovered from
Covid-19 as "rich" and exempting them from vaccination as making them "richer at the
expense of others." Yet it is on their behalf, and only on their behalf, that I brought in the case
of Dr. Skoly into my OP to this thread.

> >> Science shows that masks are effective at
> >> lowering risks of infection.
> >
> > It's a question of degree, where one draws the line between "effective" and "ineffective."
> > Do you have some studies to provide us with?

> Do you honestly doubt it?

Lack of identifiable referent to "it" noted. All I doubt here is that the benefits of
canceling public school classes for children is worth the real damage to their social maturity
by isolating them from their peers. [Yes, that's not the issue in this particular case;
but that's the only thing I have serious doubts about along these lines.]

Given the minuscule rate of children catching Covid-19 in public school classes
and the even more minuscule number with symptoms requiring hospitalization,
you need to ask yourself where YOU draw the line as to depriving children of contact with their peers.

>
> - Howard et al., "An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19",
> PNAS 118(4), https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014564118
> - Abboah-Offei et al., "A rapid review of the use of face mask in
> preventing the spread of COVID-19", _International J. of Nurs. Studies
> Adv._ 3.
> - Gapen et al., "Assessing the effectiveness of alternative measures
> to slow the spread of COVID-19 in the United States", _Covid Economics_
> 40: 46.

Lack of figures provided by you noted.

> You could find more if you were interested in looking.

You could be more credible if you weren't so tight-lipped about the sources you post.
It creates the suspicion that you never read the papers you are citing.

I've posted some figures today from a science report, quoting liberally from it in
reply to your ally jillery. Will you bother to look at them?

Here is another paragraph from the same article, featuring a concept your buddy Hemidactylus
is madly in love with -- but not as madly as he is in love with himself: somatic hypermutation:

"A series of experiments conducted to identify the factors responsible for a durable immune response indicated that a long-lasting humoral immunity is associated with high frequencies of spike-reactive memory B cells originated from prior exposure to seasonal human coronaviruses. These memory B cells showed higher levels of somatic hypermutation. Moreover, individuals with long-lasting immunity showed higher frequencies of overall memory B cells reactive to the spike S2 subunit, which is highly conserved across human coronaviruses."
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210915/Natural-SARS-CoV-2-infection-induces-more-durable-immunity-than-vaccination.aspx#commentblock

Note: a url, not something that gives your adversary some work to do. Do you imagine that I have
scads of free time, like your unemployed biologist bosom buddy John Harshman seems to have?

Does it make you happy that your buddy jillery regularly lies her head off about my posting my place of work,
from which you could easily deduce that I have little time to chase down references that could
turn out to be duds?

> >> So your source's credibility goes down in flames.
> >
> > Says someone who utterly destroyed his credibility by libeling me with the
> > accusation that I want to take away basic human rights from gay people.
> >
> > You whine every time I bring this up, but you've never shown any regrets for having done it.

> You cite a political source which gets other basic science wrong, science which should be close to obvious.

Prove it by quoting from an article of your choice. One of the two above would do
nicely if you could do it.

> And rather than find good
> science or support your source, you throw off irrelevant accusations.

Will you be saying anything like this to Hemidactylus about his irrelevant accusations
that have nothing to do with this thread, about how I didn't take scads of time off
from my duties as a faculty member to discuss somatic hypermutation?

Will Pope Francis convert to Islam?

Which of the above two questions is more likely to have a "Yes" answer?


Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.

Peter Nyikos

. . . . . . . . QUOTE OF THE DAY . . . . . . .

"We shall show mercy, but we will not ask for it."
-- Winston Churchill

Remark: I don't know when Winston said this, and I hope that he had nothing to do
with the diabolically evil firebombing of Dresden by the RAF a short time before the Nazis surrendered.

[*Hemidactylus*]

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> Here is another paragraph from the same article, featuring a concept your
> buddy Hemidactylus
> is madly in love with -- but not as madly as he is
> in love with himself: somatic hypermutation:
>
> "A series of experiments conducted to identify the factors responsible
> for a durable immune response indicated that a long-lasting humoral
> immunity is associated with high frequencies of spike-reactive memory B
> cells originated from prior exposure to seasonal human coronaviruses.
> These memory B cells showed higher levels of somatic hypermutation.
> Moreover, individuals with long-lasting immunity showed higher
> frequencies of overall memory B cells reactive to the spike S2 subunit,
> which is highly conserved across human coronaviruses."
> https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210915/Natural-SARS-CoV-2-infection-induces-more-durable-immunity-than-vaccination.aspx#commentblock
>
> Note: a url, not something that gives your adversary some work to do. Do
> you imagine that I have
> scads of free time, like your unemployed biologist bosom buddy John
> Harshman seems to have?
>

WTF? Harshman isn’t even posting to this thread.
>
[snip]

>
> Will you be saying anything like this to Hemidactylus about his irrelevant accusations
> that have nothing to do with this thread, about how I didn't take scads of time off
> from my duties as a faculty member to discuss somatic hypermutation?
>

You discuss plenty of other things.

>
> Will Pope Francis convert to Islam?
>
> Which of the above two questions is more likely to have a "Yes" answer?
>

Well at least you’ve encountered the concept somatic hypermutation first
hand. Baby steps.

Except maybe Bill Rogers none of us that I know of has the background to be
evaluating the research on “natural immunity” being sufficient to exempt
from vaccination. Has the much touted Israeli study or the one you posted
about today [
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.09.459504v1.full ] made it
through actual peer-review yet? That would be important I assume. And I
wouldn’t put Bill Rogers on the spot for such an evaluation. We have public
health experts for that. If these studies have merit enough to change their
prior positions that’s entirely their call, not yours or mine.

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/21/21 2:44 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

[snip changes of subject]

Hmm. Nothing left.

> [...] Do you imagine that I have

> scads of free time, like your unemployed biologist bosom buddy John Harshman seems to have?

I bet you could save ten minutes a day simply by foregoing gratuitous
mentions of Harshman. Okay, that's an exaggeration. But as long as you
engage in such worthless and pointless pursuits, I shall conclude that
you have more than adequate time that could be better spent.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:35:14 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > The original research paper, which I haven't had the time to read yet:
> > https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.09.459504v1.full
> >
> “This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review”

IOW, it's in the same boat as the Pfizer vaccine was until it was given FDA approval
well after Biden's executive mandate, and several state mandates that were far more
onerous, went into effect.

Until then, it was an "experimental vaccine" given FDA permission for unlimited use on the basis of
an "emergency" which the Biden regime declared, and which prudence would have dictated
to be voluntary in the light of facts like the following.

When I got both my first and second shots, I was made to wait fifteen minutes just
in case I had a severe reaction to the vaccine. So have countless others before and
after the February dates when I got them. Yet on the day I went, we all had to fill out questionnaires
and answer questions about whether we had a list of conditions that would predispose
us to severe reactions. It didn't matter that I had answered "No" to all such questions.

And yet, people who cite these things as reasons why they don't want to take a risk that
might be greater than their chance of severe symptoms of Covid-19 are being
demonized by Hemidactylus's integrity-abandoning benefactor jillery. The vaccine mandates ride
roughshod over them if they do not have the small list of conditions that I answered "No" to.

> I have said I dunno if immunity acquired by infection is sufficient versus
> vaccination.

Hemidactylus is repeating a comment that I have identified as blithely ignoring the issue: should
governments have the power to compel people to get vaccinated before the CDC gives a
definitive analysis that refutes evidence in the "non-peer-reviewed" article and elsewhere
about the efficacy of immunity from having had Covid-19?

Hemidactylus has gone on record with the reality-defying allegation that this is a "pointless"
issue. Until he retracts this allegation, I refuse to be on speaking terms with him. So everything
I write here is addressed to the general readership.

> Have you more confidence? If so why? And are you arguing from
> or towards your conclusion?

To paraphrase Vladimir Lenin, if one does not argue towards a conclusion,
what in heaven's name should one be arguing towards?

Lenin's original [translations vary]: "If the ends do not justify the means, what in heaven's name does?"

Finally, I note that some thread participants completely ignore the individual case of Dr. Skoly's
immunity in their propaganda denouncing him for allegedly not following protocols and illegally defying
the mandate to get vaccinated. Since the things he says about his immunity are verifiable from
medical records, they choose a path taken by internet propagandists for China's coerced abortion during
the long "one child policy."

The propagandists branded the Nobel Prize recipient who painstakingly gathered and made
the evidence of this coercion public as a "criminal" for violating the laws that made his sheltering
women from coercion a crime -- but without, of course, spelling out the nature of the crime.


Peter Nyikos

PS AFAIK, the Moderna vaccine still hasn't received FDA approval. Does anyone reading this
know otherwise?

PPS I reluctantly leave this thread for the rest of the day to attend to my duties related to my job and
family. If I find myself with some free time, I will tie up a few loose ends in other threads in talk.origins
and elsewhere.

[*Hemidactylus*]

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:35:14 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> The original research paper, which I haven't had the time to read yet:
>>> https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.09.459504v1.full
>>>
>> “This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review”
>
> IOW, it's in the same boat as the Pfizer vaccine was until it was given FDA approval
> well after Biden's executive mandate, and several state mandates that were far more
> onerous, went into effect.
>
> Until then, it was an "experimental vaccine" given FDA permission for
> unlimited use on the basis of
> an "emergency" which the Biden regime declared, and which prudence would have dictated
> to be voluntary in the light of facts like the following.
>
> When I got both my first and second shots, I was made to wait fifteen minutes just
> in case I had a severe reaction to the vaccine. So have countless others before and
> after the February dates when I got them. Yet on the day I went, we all
> had to fill out questionnaires
> and answer questions about whether we had a list of conditions that would predispose
> us to severe reactions. It didn't matter that I had answered "No" to all such questions.
>

IMO it is good you got your shots and didn’t suffer the COVID means of
acquired immunity (however robust).

>
> And yet, people who cite these things as reasons why they don't want to take a risk that
> might be greater than their chance of severe symptoms of Covid-19 are being
> demonized by Hemidactylus's integrity-abandoning benefactor jillery. The
> vaccine mandates ride
> roughshod over them if they do not have the small list of conditions that
> I answered "No" to.
>

Well would you classify people lacking immunity from prior infection or
from vaccination as different from COVID recovered (IF sufficiently immune)
or fully vaccinated per mandates?

And even if COVID recovered could be considered exempt, would you encourage
them to still get vaccinated, especially in light of potential enhanced
hybrid immunity?

>
>> I have said I dunno if immunity acquired by infection is sufficient versus
>> vaccination.
>
> Hemidactylus is repeating a comment that I have identified as blithely
> ignoring the issue: should
> governments have the power to compel people to get vaccinated before the CDC gives a
> definitive analysis that refutes evidence in the "non-peer-reviewed" article and elsewhere
> about the efficacy of immunity from having had Covid-19?
>

Burden of supporting claims goes the other way per adjusting priors. If the
article you cite above passes muster and warrants a change in mandate
policy…that’s not for us Monday morning QBs to decide. Sorry.

>
> Hemidactylus has gone on record with the reality-defying allegation that
> this is a "pointless"
> issue. Until he retracts this allegation, I refuse to be on speaking
> terms with him. So everything
> I write here is addressed to the general readership.
>

It was pointless and irrelevant to the topicality of that thread as I saw
it and you did insult me from the get-go on that one. You may have analyzed
the part before the BUT regarding whether mRNA or whatever integrated into
cellular DNA but I was talking about SHM and may have given you a head
start analyzing the article you cite above in that regard.

If you hadn’t insulted me and had kept up with the arc of the thread as
it…umm…evolved, things may have gone differently. And this is your thread
where that was mine.

I actually skimmed briefly through the article and found it pretty
interesting. Thanks for posting it. It is food for thought.

[jillery]

Since you mention it, and only because you mention it, I point out
that demonstrating superior immunity from Covid-19 infections is just
one item in a list of items that go in evaluating it as a cause for
exemption. As I pointe out elsethread, it's non-trivial to establish
who actually had Covid-19, and who actually developed immunity from
it.

[Glenn]

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 2:00:14 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 11:40:14 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 8:00:14 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> > > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:00:57 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> > > <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 6:50:14 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> > > >> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 13:45:50 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> > > >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >Although I am snipping jillery's personal remarks which have no identifiable
> > > >> >scientific content,
> > > >
> > > >Done below.
>
> > > You conveniently left in your personal remarks which have no
> > > identifiable scientific content.
> Jillery is ignoring a huge difference between us: she could adopt the same policy
> towards me, but does not: it would cramp her style too much.
>
> And so, she sporadically behaves in this way when it suits her and is her
> usual self when she does not,

I don't think he knows who he is.

> > > I fixed it for you, except for the
> > > following:
> > > >[1] It was worded in a virtually identical way as uncounted dozens of earlier snips over the years were worded,
> > > >complete with a shameless lie at the end [2].
> > > >
> > > >[2] Some might even accuse jillery about lying on the preceding line about what she had snipped,
> > > >but since it is impossible to tell what fraction of jillery's snips was marked and what fraction was unmarked, I'm not going down that rabbit hole.
>
> > > It would be trivially easy for anyone who cared to go to previous
> > > posts in this thread and see for themselves you are lying about me.
> The above is yet another one of hundreds of occasions that jillery covers previous lies with new ones.
>
>
> Turning to the simple one-liner that you wrote, Glenn, I am fascinated by how much there is hidden behind it:
> > Beats me how you can live with yourself.
> I like the way you turn one of Ron O's most libelous and frequent phrases into a sincere one by yourself, Glenn.
>

I make such claims only after considerable thought, are sincere and are not intended to hurt. Unfortunately I have no anesthetic to administer.

>
> You may have missed it, but back in 1993, jillery prostituted her integrity for Hemidactylus's buddy
> Ron O almost as fulsomely as she did for Hemidactylus himself on the thread "Re: mRNA vaccines changing DNA??" this month.
>
> It was on a thread on turtle genome and ancestry. When I gave a fully on-topic scientific treatment
> of Ron O's OP, Ron O completely lost interest in his own on-topic-for-t.o. topic and never showed
> any awareness of it it again.

I've only seen Ron interested in one thing, having to do with his transition to atheism. just recently he more or less "spilled the beans" and came out of the closet so to speak, though I didn't comment and don't recall the thread.

>
> Instead, he demanded that I resume dealing with his rabid personal attacks on me in other threads.
> The demand was so extreme that Burkhard *plonked* Ron O and, for all I know, may never have
> unkillfiled him since.

Hadn't heard that one, but you might be aware of my regard of the subject and practical application of killfiling.

>
> I then told Ron O that I refused to do that on "his" thread and said he'd just have to wait for a while before
> I returned to any personal clashes with him. Ron O then revealed what a crybaby he was by
> shedding oceans of crocodile tears to jillery (who joined the thread very soon after my reply) about
> how mean I supposedly kept being to him. I totally ignored this phoney baloney and jillery's
> equally phoney "defense" of Ron O.
>
> Others didn't. Back then, there were several people with more integrity than either jillery or Ron O, who
> encouraged them to get back on topic and were appreciative of the way I kept posting about it
> and sticking to it despite the torrents of abuse Ron O and jillery were heaping on me in reply to each other.
>
> Among them were Roger Shrubber, who wound up *plonking* both jillery and Ron O, despite his
> frequent earlier attacks on me, and the largely honorable Richard Norman, who lent stability
> to sci.bio.paleontology, especially from mid-2015 until his unannounced disappearance from
> both t.o. and s.b.p. in 2017.
>
> But that's another story. One more thing that took place on that thread that is worth mentioning now:
> jillery candidly revealed to Ron O that she was backing him more to help herself than to help him.
>
> I believe that is also true of the way jillery went to the mat for Hemidactylus earlier this month, and
> to a far greater extent than I ever saw before, to boot.

Not that any group is immune, but they can and will turn against and devour each other at any given time.
If one steps out of line just a liiitle too far, such as appearing to defend Trump or expressing skepticism about anything evolutionary, they know what would likely happen. So the devouring part isn't often observed. It's a scary world they live in, and are trying to impose on all of us.

There's an article out I just read about Jerry Coyne, the guy who spent a lot of calories to get Chris Hedin booted from his position, now he's trying to appear as if for free speech. He's liable to be cancelled if he isn't careful. Who knows, maybe he's developed migraines.

> Peter Nyikos
>
> . . . . . . . . QUOTE OF THE DAY . . . . . . .
> "We shall show mercy, but we shall not ask for it."
> -- Winston Churchill
> Remark: in this godforsaken forum, asking for mercy is a sign of weakness. As one real-life prostitute
> once said, "It's the nice guys that get rolled 'cause I figure they're weak."

References? :)

[Glenn]

That is loaded with non-information. There could be many "items", including political ones.

>As I pointe out elsethread, it's non-trivial to establish
> who actually had Covid-19, and who actually developed immunity from
> it.
> --

"A positive antibody test result shows you may have antibodies from a previous infection or from vaccination for the virus that causes COVID-19."

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/testing/serology-overview.html

Keep pointing "it" out.

[jillery]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 19:23:26 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>> exemption. As I pointe out elsethread, it's non-trivial to establish

>> who actually had Covid-19, and who actually developed immunity from
>> it.

>
>That is loaded with non-information. There could be many "items", including political ones.

That's what I said.

>"A positive antibody test result shows you may have antibodies from a previous infection or from vaccination for the virus that causes COVID-19."

Yes, you *may* have antibodies, and those antibodies *may* provide
future immunity.

>https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/testing/serology-overview.html
>
>Keep pointing "it" out.
>

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 6:45:14 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/21/21 2:44 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [snip changes of subject]

In these changes, I wrote things that a sincere guileless person in your shoes would be deeply embarrassed about.
You are using a pathetic excuse for avoiding them, one so pathetic that the only regular that I see employing it frequently is jillery.

> Hmm. Nothing left.

You are burying your head in the sand, and I expect you to bury your head in the sand about this:
earlier this week, Steve Krakauer reported that Florida has the lowest rate of new infections in the
continental USA. And it happened in the absence of vaccine requirements, widespread business closures,
mask mandates, and draconian lockdowns.

Repeat to yourself: "Must be fake news. Must be fake news. Must be fake news. ..."


Oh. Wait. You'll also have to bury your head in the sand over the listing, by state and territory, of new
infections per capita in the last two weeks here:

Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count Updated Oct. 22, 2021
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html

Repeat to yourself: "Florida must be faking statistics. Florida must be faking statistics. Florida must be faking statistics. ..."

> > [...] Do you imagine that I have
> > scads of free time, like your unemployed biologist bosom buddy John Harshman seems to have?


> I bet you could save ten minutes a day simply by foregoing gratuitous
> mentions of Harshman. Okay, that's an exaggeration.

A tremendous exaggeration, and my mention wasn't gratuitous. Details on request.

> But as long as you
> engage in such worthless and pointless pursuits, I shall conclude that
> you have more than adequate time that could be better spent.

Spoken like an authoritarian first grade teacher.

But hey, as long as you bury your head in the sand over things of national significance,
fully on topic as far as my OP is concerned, I have no trouble laughing off your petty annoyances.

> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
> "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred
> to the presence of those who think they've found it." - Terry Pratchett

You act like you think you've found it, just like authoritarian grade school teachers everywhere.


Peter Nyikos

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

You are bad at personal judgement, because you are clueless about emotions. Really, the way you made this decision, is because of sentiments, that you believe in science in general. It is because you deny choices are based on emotion, is that you don't have a sophisticated emotional basis for your decisions. You lack the fear of doing harm, the fear of harming children. You lack all those emotions, and instead you have that blitzy science progress sentiment take too big a role.

Risk 1, new vaccin, fasttracked
Risk 2, first ever coronavirus vaccin
Risk 3, first wide use mrna vaccin
Risk 4, first time some lipid glycol whatever substance introduced in a vaccin

The vaers numbers of deaths, indicate that all these risks can turn out badly. Given the data, it is a theoretical possiblity that tens of percents of the people that get the shot, will die from it.

That is an unacceptable risk to take, even if in the end everything would turn out ok, it is still not ethical to take a credible risk of killing hundreds of millions of people.

I also note that the pharmaceutical companies, as well as the government agencies, big tech, as well as academics, lie, cheat, deceive, and are not transparant. And they are not held to account for any of that, aren't punished for it. So it means there is a low trust environment. Politically you cannot do anything in a low trust environment. You cannot mandate, force anything, because there is no trust.

These vaccins should never have been allowed except for a few high risk cases. They should just work on early treatment therapeutics, to mitigate the disease.

Forcing or coercing people to take these vaccins, can get you in prison for many years, or really, you can be put to death for it, when the risks for children or youngsters taking the vaccins turns out badly. You are getting into the doctor Mengele area of crime. And probably for many of the exactsame reasons as Dr Mengele.

Now that the vaccins have been shown to lose most power after less than a year, it should be clear to everyone, that vaccins are totally unworkable, and a high risk road to go.

The vaccin promoters must be purged from academics, politics and industry, in tribunals with the proper punishment.









Op dinsdag 19 oktober 2021 om 20:35:15 UTC+2 schreef jillery:

> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 07:42:16 -0500, *Hemidactylus*

> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
> >jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 18:48:27 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The scientific evidence is very strong that immunity conferred by having
> >>> recovered from Covid-19 is significantly better than that conferred by
> >>> vaccination. Yet the recovered cohort, a significant fraction now of the US
> >>> population, is completely ignored in every vaccine mandate that I have ever seen.
> >>>
> >>> Today I learned of a case that exposes the injustice of not waiting until the
> >>> evidence in the above paragraph has been accepted or rejected by the
> >>> notoriously slow CDC, but going full speed ahead with mandates that ignore it.
> >>>
> >>> It involves Dr. Stephen Skoly, a well-known oral and maxillofacial surgeon in
> >>> Rhode Island. The gist of his situation is summarized in the following
> >>> excerpts from a recent interview.
> >>>
> >>> Interviewer: Dr. Skoly, let’s begin with you. You are a well-known surgeon in
> >>> Rhode Island and you’ve recently been ordered to cease care by the state
> >>> Department of Health because you objected to the health care worker
> >>> vaccine mandate. Can you explain to us what’s going on in your situation
> >>> and what you currently face today?
> >>>
> >>> Stephen Skoly: "Sure. I received a compliance order on Friday, Oct. 1, to
> >>> prohibit in-person care for my patients and the other patients that I
> >>> would see throughout the state. ...
> >>> The COVID mandate was issued in the middle of August with a charge of

> >>> mandated vaccinations for health care workers by Oct. 1. I looked into a
> >>> multitude of things. The most important for me at that point was a medical
> >>> exemption. I had a somewhat complicated issue following a couple
> >>> episodes of Lyme disease, which resulted in me having some Bell’s palsy.
> >>> I had an ocular injury as a young adult to one of my eyes, which I’ve
> >>> had some lens replacements.
> >>> ...

> >>> "You either have an exemption because you have a severe allergic
> >>> reaction or basically you’ve developed some type of myocardial problem
> >>> secondary to the vaccination. ... I actually recovered from COVID—I got
> >>> COVID in December of 2020, pretty sick for a few days...
> >>> ...
> >>> I have been following my antibodies since that time and as recently as
> >>> last week have quite a high level of COVID-19 spike protein IgG, which
> >>> is the antibody for the recovery of my process. And it’s given me a
> >>> pretty robust naturally acquired immunity and probably, and the
> >>> literature is suggesting, that I might have five times the antibodies
> >>> that a fully vaccinated person might have."
> >>> --https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/10/18/this-doctor-opposes-covid-vaccine-mandate-now-his-state-wont-let-him-practice-medicine/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Biden's one-size-fits-all mandate makes no exception for the recovered
> >>> cohort, despite the scientific evidence, and neither has any other that
> >>> I have read about. Most of the ones I have read about do not make
> >>> exception for weekly testing for the coronavirus, like Biden's does; the
> >>> one by the Rhode Island Department of Health obviously does not.
> >>>
> >>> Is the blind eye this department turns towards Dr. Skoly's very robust
> >>> antibody level for the spike protein [1] typical of these mandates,
> >>> including Biden's? I'd welcome any news to the contrary from readers.
> >>>
> >>>

> >>> [1] This is the ONLY antibody whose production is stimulated by the Pfizer
> >>> and Moderna vacines. Yet it stands to reason that exposure to the full virus
> >>> should stimulate a number of different kinds of antibodies.
> >>> Dr. Skoly doesn't seem to be trying to ascertain their levels -- why
> >>> bother going to the trouble, eh?
> >>>
> >>>

> >>> But Dr. Skoly has taken action of a different sort, which I'll be talking about
> >>> in my next post to this thread.
> >>
> >>

> >> <https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/coronavirus-vaccine-mandate-for-those-who-have-gotten-covid-19.aspx>
> >> <https://tinyurl.com/p5s4wkce>
> >> *******************************
> >> "The Biden administration's mandate is unlikely to distinguish between
> >> those who have had previous infections and those who have not, and
> >> employers should not do so either—and for good reason," said Martha
> >> Boyd, an attorney with Baker Donelson in Nashville, Tenn. Individual
> >> immunity levels after infection vary based on a variety of factors,
> >> including the severity of the previous infection.
> >>
> >> While a study from Israeli researchers shows natural immunity to be
> >> more protective than vaccine immunity, as reported by Bloomberg,
> >> findings from a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
> >> study suggest that full vaccination provides additional protection to
> >> those who have had COVID-19.
> >>
> >> Objections based on a previous COVID-19 infection would have to be
> >> made through the reasonable accommodation request process, noted
> >> Andrew Maunz, an attorney with Jackson Lewis in Pittsburgh, and the
> >> employer should then follow its normal accommodation procedures to
> >> determine if the following applies:
> >>
> >> * The employee has a disability under the Americans with Disabilities
> >> Act that conflicts with the employment policy.
> >>
> >> * A reasonable accommodation can be provided without an undue hardship
> >> on the employer.
> >>
> >> In some cases, it would be difficult to know whether an employee had
> >> COVID-19, particularly if that person's infection occurred before
> >> testing was available and was identified solely based on the presence
> >> of antibodies or self-reported symptoms, Boyd said. "Accordingly, we
> >> advise employers who require employees to be vaccinated not to
> >> distinguish between those who were previously infected and those who
> >> were not with regard to the vaccination protocol," she said.
> >>
> >> An employer that lets an employee bypass a vaccine mandate by claiming
> >> natural immunity from prior infection may be in the uncomfortable
> >> position of determining on a case-by-case basis whether the worker's
> >> claim is true, Boyd said. "Employers would have difficulty verifying
> >> previous infection."
> >> *****************************
> >>
> >More food for thought:
> >
> >https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/vaccine/natural-immunity-difference-covid-vaccine/63-e14e70fc-b4e3-4956-ab37-90cbc2e4ffd8
> >
> >https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/vaccine/israeli-study-did-find-natural-immunity-is-effective-in-fighting-covid-19-health-experts-recommend-vaccination/536-ff80f3d4-bb78-4eb3-8889-7eed73d4d9b6
> >
> >And Moderna vs Pfizer showdown?
> >
> >https://www.businessinsider.com/moderna-vaccines-might-not-need-boosters-like-pfizer-2021-9
> >
> >https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7038e1.htm
> >
> >The much touted Israeli study focused on Pfizer no?
> >
> >https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
> >
> >And from that:
> >“Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a
> >single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta
> >variant.”
> >
> >So…
> >
> >And: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf
> >
> >“Our study has several limitations. First, as the Delta variant was the
> >dominant strain in Israel during the outcome period, the decreased
> >long-term protection of the vaccine compared to that afforded by previous
> >infection cannot be ascertained against other strains. Second, our analysis
> >addressed protection afforded solely by the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2
> >vaccine, and therefore does not address other vaccines or long-term
> >protection following a third dose, of which the deployment is underway in
> >Israel.”
> >
> >Still I dunno if natural immunity is sufficient or not per public health
> >policy. I’m not a public health expert tasked with making those difficult
> >decisions. Is anybody who is on this thread? We are all Monday morning
> >quarterbacks, not public health officials so…

> Whether from prior infection, or from vaccine, it's not surprising
> that the strength of the immune response wanes over time. The immune

> system tends to forget unless it's reminded. And new variants are

> regularly introduced into the environment. So duration isn't a
> relevant issue wrt vaccine mandates for anybody.
>

> Meanwhile, people who oppose vaccine mandates are escalating, by
> quitting their jobs, threatening violent opposition, and seceding from
> the Union. Really? The right to risk a lingering death while exposing
> everyone around them to that same risk? Is that really an honorable
> principle, one worth falling on their sword, a hill worth dying for?
> Really?

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/22/21 5:15 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 6:45:14 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 10/21/21 2:44 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> [snip changes of subject]
>
> In these changes, I wrote things that a sincere guileless person in your shoes would be deeply embarrassed about.
> You are using a pathetic excuse for avoiding them, one so pathetic that the only regular that I see employing it frequently is jillery.
>
>> Hmm. Nothing left.
>
> You are burying your head in the sand, and I expect you to bury your head in the sand about this:
> earlier this week, Steve Krakauer reported that Florida has the lowest rate of new infections in the
> continental USA. And it happened in the absence of vaccine requirements, widespread business closures,
> mask mandates, and draconian lockdowns.

Right. It happened by letting 10,000 people die needlessly in previous
weeks.

"Letting" might be the wrong word. From what I have heard from people
in Florida, Ron DeSantis is *encouraging* people to die.

> Repeat to yourself: "Must be fake news. Must be fake news. Must be fake news. ..."
>
>
> Oh. Wait. You'll also have to bury your head in the sand over the listing, by state and territory, of new
> infections per capita in the last two weeks here:
>
> Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count Updated Oct. 22, 2021
> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html
>
> Repeat to yourself: "Florida must be faking statistics. Florida must be faking statistics. Florida must be faking statistics. ..."

All the references I have seen (and I found them through your citations)
say that vaccination helps even people who have recovered from COVID-19.
'Nuff said.


[snip Nyikos filling his free time in his usual juvenile manner]

--

[Glenn]

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 10:25:14 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/22/21 5:15 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 6:45:14 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 10/21/21 2:44 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip changes of subject]
> >
> > In these changes, I wrote things that a sincere guileless person in your shoes would be deeply embarrassed about.
> > You are using a pathetic excuse for avoiding them, one so pathetic that the only regular that I see employing it frequently is jillery.
> >
> >> Hmm. Nothing left.
> >
> > You are burying your head in the sand, and I expect you to bury your head in the sand about this:
> > earlier this week, Steve Krakauer reported that Florida has the lowest rate of new infections in the
> > continental USA. And it happened in the absence of vaccine requirements, widespread business closures,
> > mask mandates, and draconian lockdowns.
> Right. It happened by letting 10,000 people die needlessly in previous
> weeks.
>
> "Letting" might be the wrong word. From what I have heard from people
> in Florida, Ron DeSantis is *encouraging* people to die.

And you think Mark isn't "so far gone", Peter?

Maybe he thinks DeSantis and Republicans have an ulterior political motive to kill people... or maybe he knows he's on that side.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

To understand where Mark Isaak is coming from, you need to remember how,
the day of 2016 when victory by Trump was conceded, he wrote a rabidly paranoid
screed in which he spoke darkly of a "need for insurrection" [against Trump, of course]
if Trump made a power play towards dictatorship.

His was the most paranoid reaction; the only one who came close was--
--surprise, surprise-- Hemidactylus. Almost everyone else had mature adult reactions,
even Jonathan. And, amazingly enough, Bob Casanova was also among them; he and I had
the same take on the outcome.

And so it is not a big surprise that these two paranoid jerks are now by far the most prominent
players of "see no Biden, hear no Biden, speak no Biden" and
"see no anti-scientific streak" on this thread, except for Hemidactylus's thoroughly dishonest
bootlicker and kindred spirit, jillery.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 2:05:15 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 10:25:14 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > On 10/22/21 5:15 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 6:45:14 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > >> On 10/21/21 2:44 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [snip changes of subject]
> > >
> > > In these changes, I wrote things that a sincere guileless person in your shoes would be deeply embarrassed about.
> > > You are using a pathetic excuse for avoiding them, one so pathetic that the only regular that I see employing it frequently is jillery.
> > >
> > >> Hmm. Nothing left.
> > >
> > > You are burying your head in the sand, and I expect you to bury your head in the sand about this:
> > > earlier this week, Steve Krakauer reported that Florida has the lowest rate of new infections in the
> > > continental USA. And it happened in the absence of vaccine requirements, widespread business closures,
> > > mask mandates, and draconian lockdowns.


> > Right. It happened by letting 10,000 people die needlessly in previous
> > weeks.
> > "Letting" might be the wrong word. From what I have heard from people
> > in Florida, Ron DeSantis is *encouraging* people to die.

How appropriate: the same paranoid streak Mark exhibited in 2016.

> And you think Mark isn't "so far gone", Peter?

Not as far gone as Ron O or Hemidactylus in the direction of being mentally deranged, but closing in fast.
Also, for years Hemidactylus had a secure lock on the superlative,
"The most flippantly hypocritical regular in talk.origins" in my judgment,
but that "Hmm. Nothing left." shows Mark Isaak has tremendous possibilities in that direction.

> Maybe he thinks DeSantis and Republicans have an ulterior political motive to kill people... or maybe he knows he's on that side.

This is ironic in view of the following developing story about Biden:

Biden Mocks Vaccine Skeptics: 'I Have The Freedom to Kill You With My COVID'
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-mocks-vaccine-skeptics-i-have-the-freedom-to-kill-you-with-my-covid/ar-AAPOqMe

[appeared in Newsweek online, earlier today: "This is a breaking news story and will be updated as more information becomes available."]


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 1:25:14 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/22/21 5:15 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> > You are burying your head in the sand, and I expect you to bury your head in the sand about this:
> > earlier this week, Steve Krakauer reported that Florida has the lowest rate of new infections in the
> > continental USA. And it happened in the absence of vaccine requirements, widespread business closures,
> > mask mandates, and draconian lockdowns.

<snip of paranoid reaction by Mark, quoted in reply to Glenn about half an hour ago>

> > Repeat to yourself: "Must be fake news. Must be fake news. Must be fake news. ..."
> >
> >
> > Oh. Wait. You'll also have to bury your head in the sand over the listing, by state and territory, of new
> > infections per capita in the last two weeks here:
> >
> > Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count Updated Oct. 22, 2021
> > https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html
> >
> > Repeat to yourself: "Florida must be faking statistics. Florida must be faking statistics. Florida must be faking statistics. ..."
> All the references I have seen (and I found them through your citations)
> say that vaccination helps even people who have recovered from COVID-19.

Yes, but with one exception, they don't go into detail about the advantages of that vaccination.
The exception stated that the only improvement found with the extra vaccine was in the lower
number of asymptomatic cases. Compare that with the severe reactions that some people have
from the vaccine.

But don't stop there. Keep reading:


> 'Nuff said.

A profoundly stupid attempt to hide your love of vaccine mandates that make no exception
for natural immunity. To call the following canard by you "projection" is too kind:

> [snip Nyikos filling his free time in his usual juvenile manner]

Are you happy about the mandates by the Colorado hospitals that deny organ transplants
to the people who have recovered from Covid-19 and aren't vaccinated?

Maybe the paranoid rant that I snipped up there will give you second thoughts about that ignorant "'Nuff said"
if you think long and hard about my question. But I doubt it.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

I wonder what reaction Mark would have to the claim that Biden has and is encouraging people to die as a result of his immigration "policies", or lack of them. Some more intelligent than less might argue that, even if acknowledging some "immigrants" have died to be factual, or that increased drug smuggling causing more deaths, would claim it doesn't rise to the level of a viral pandemic, and so on and so on.

By the way, everything I read, hear and see, adds support to the claim that Democrats just don't care, though they make a great effort to make it sound as if they do. Have you heard even on Democrat *demonstrate* extreme concern for the people subjected to the current admin's handling or lack of handling of this situation?

> > And you think Mark isn't "so far gone", Peter?
> Not as far gone as Ron O or Hemidactylus in the direction of being mentally deranged, but closing in fast.
> Also, for years Hemidactylus had a secure lock on the superlative,
> "The most flippantly hypocritical regular in talk.origins" in my judgment,
> but that "Hmm. Nothing left." shows Mark Isaak has tremendous possibilities in that direction.

Of course, I, or possibly both of us, will be branded as accusing everyone on talk.origins as having serious mental health issues.
I'm watching Mark a little closer lately, since he asked about my worldview, and more or less copied it in reply as his own. And there it ended.
I can't accept that advocating for one thing in some manner, and advocating for another thing in a different manner, can be described as
otherwise normal people with a bias of a particular subject and not with another. There is something mentally or emotionally wrong with those people. I include racists in that category as well as fundamentalists of any flavor.
Perhaps with Mark a touch of intelligent sociopathy...

> > Maybe he thinks DeSantis and Republicans have an ulterior political motive to kill people... or maybe he knows he's on that side.
> This is ironic in view of the following developing story about Biden:
>
> Biden Mocks Vaccine Skeptics: 'I Have The Freedom to Kill You With My COVID'
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-mocks-vaccine-skeptics-i-have-the-freedom-to-kill-you-with-my-covid/ar-AAPOqMe
>
> [appeared in Newsweek online, earlier today: "This is a breaking news story and will be updated as more information becomes available."]
>

I read it. Doesn't seem to be much of an issue. Joe is well known for such behavior, man.
Fox hasn't said anything about it, though there are other comments about Joe in the CNN (cough) "town hall" meeting.
Some of the Fox contributors have wondered whether Biden is a puppet, perhaps of a "clique" in the white house, or even Obama whispering in his ear. Harris doesn't appear to be capable, however sympathetic to their agenda. Or it could be orders from the billionaires and their dark money whispering in his ear, along with Hunter and his paintings. I see no reason to doubt the distinct possibility that Joe is and has always been, crooked as a dog's hind leg. What his administration is doing can all be seen as cover, not just for Biden, for themselves as well.

[Glenn]

Ow.

https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/1450934193177903105?s=20

'Nothing to see here, move along' can be heard to reverberate thru the skulls of the infirm.

how friggin obvious can this get? and why all the attempted cover-up? So what, everyone knows this happens, even in the US. Wouldn't we want this sort of research, to protect us from potentially dangerous diseases, as long as it was safely done? How deep are the pockets that point to China?

[jillery]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 13:37:44 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>To understand where Mark Isaak is coming from, you need to remember how,
>the day of 2016 when victory by Trump was conceded, he wrote a rabidly paranoid
>screed in which he spoke darkly of a "need for insurrection" [against Trump, of course]
>if Trump made a power play towards dictatorship.
>
>His was the most paranoid reaction; the only one who came close was--
>--surprise, surprise-- Hemidactylus. Almost everyone else had mature adult reactions,
>even Jonathan. And, amazingly enough, Bob Casanova was also among them; he and I had
>the same take on the outcome.
>
>And so it is not a big surprise that these two paranoid jerks are now by far the most prominent
>players of "see no Biden, hear no Biden, speak no Biden" and
>"see no anti-scientific streak" on this thread, except for Hemidactylus's thoroughly dishonest
>bootlicker and kindred spirit, jillery.

And here is an example of the peter posting mindless criticisms
against jillery, this time because jillery didn't post *enough* in
this thread. And for "reasons" neither expressed nor implied, the
peter accuses jillery of being Hemidactylus' bootlicker, when recently
elsetopic the peter accused jillery of having been "nasty" to
Hemidactylus.

jillery would ask the peter to make up his mind, but it's not clear
that the peter has a mind to make up.

<snip remaining, which has nothing to do with the peter's comments
above, which in turn have nothing to do with the topic or with
anything anybody said in it>

Not sure how anybody with a mind gives the peter any credibility.

[jillery]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 05:15:01 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 6:45:14 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 10/21/21 2:44 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> [snip changes of subject]
>
>In these changes, I wrote things that a sincere guileless person in your shoes would be deeply embarrassed about.
>You are using a pathetic excuse for avoiding them, one so pathetic that the only regular that I see employing it frequently is jillery.

There's a deep irony of the peter accusing others of "embarrassing"
behaviors, since the peter has made same his virtual trademark.

Not sure how any rational person gives the peter any credibility.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Don't be so quick to dismiss the pandemic as a factor here, Glenn. I've heard tell that when illegal
immigrants are caught, they are sometimes released due to lack of prison facilities after
being booked, but without being tested for SARS-CoV-2.

> >
> > By the way, everything I read, hear and see, adds support to the claim that Democrats just don't care, though they make a great effort to make it sound as if they do. Have you heard even on Democrat *demonstrate* extreme concern for the people subjected to the current admin's handling or lack of handling of this situation?

Senator Sinema comes to mind: she blistered Biden and Harris for the gross neglect of the border.
Of course, she and Manchin are not typical of the party, and I believe Mark and Hemidactylus put her in the category
of traitors to the party. How dare Sinema do a piece in the Washington Post defending the institution of the filibuster, eh?

As for Manchin, rumors are flying that if the party doesn't drastically reduce a 3.5 trillion spending
bill to about half that amount, he will either become an Independent or (horrors!) join the Republican party.

> > > > And you think Mark isn't "so far gone", Peter?

> > > Not as far gone as Ron O or Hemidactylus in the direction of being mentally deranged, but closing in fast.
> > > Also, for years Hemidactylus had a secure lock on the superlative,
> > > "The most flippantly hypocritical regular in talk.origins" in my judgment,
> > > but that "Hmm. Nothing left." shows Mark Isaak has tremendous possibilities in that direction.

> > Of course, I, or possibly both of us, will be branded as accusing everyone on talk.origins as having serious mental health issues.

Mark regularly does that on his own behalf, but he did it on John Harshman's behalf when I caught Harshman
red-handed in a lie AND doing a cover-up that was to the lie as Nixon's cover-up was to the "third rate Watergate burglary."

> > I'm watching Mark a little closer lately, since he asked about my worldview, and more or less copied it in reply as his own. And there it ended.
> > I can't accept that advocating for one thing in some manner, and advocating for another thing in a different manner, can be described as
> > otherwise normal people with a bias of a particular subject and not with another. There is something mentally or emotionally wrong with those people. I include racists in that category as well as fundamentalists of any flavor.

> > Perhaps with Mark a touch of intelligent sociopathy...

> > > > Maybe he thinks DeSantis and Republicans have an ulterior political motive to kill people... or maybe he knows he's on that side.
> > > This is ironic in view of the following developing story about Biden:
> > >
> > > Biden Mocks Vaccine Skeptics: 'I Have The Freedom to Kill You With My COVID'
> > > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-mocks-vaccine-skeptics-i-have-the-freedom-to-kill-you-with-my-covid/ar-AAPOqMe
> > >
> > > [appeared in Newsweek online, earlier today: "This is a breaking news story and will be updated as more information becomes available."]
> > >
> > I read it. Doesn't seem to be much of an issue. Joe is well known for such behavior, man.

> > Fox hasn't said anything about it, though there are other comments about Joe in the CNN (cough) "town hall" meeting.
> > Some of the Fox contributors have wondered whether Biden is a puppet, perhaps of a "clique" in the white house, or even Obama whispering in his ear. Harris doesn't appear to be capable, however sympathetic to their agenda. Or it could be orders from the billionaires and their dark money whispering in his ear, along with Hunter and his paintings. I see no reason to doubt the distinct possibility that Joe is and has always been, crooked as a dog's hind leg. What his administration is doing can all be seen as cover, not just for Biden, for themselves as well.

> Ow.
>
> https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/1450934193177903105?s=20
>
> 'Nothing to see here, move along' can be heard to reverberate thru the skulls of the infirm.

> how friggin obvious can this get? and why all the attempted cover-up? So what, everyone knows this happens, even in the US. Wouldn't we want this sort of research, to protect us from potentially dangerous diseases, as long as it was safely done? How deep are the pockets that point to China?

I'm wanted at home, so I'll have to catch up with this one there.

While I'm en route, you might take a look at the post I did on another thread before returning to this one:

Jillery Pays Glenn a Compliment WAS Re: Hunting
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/RDTkuO9dVjo/m/Ige6T2o6AAAJ

No, the title is NOT sarcastic. Jillery DID pay you a compliment, but is too much of an ethical nihilist to realize it.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 3:20:14 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 05:15:01 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 6:45:14 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 10/21/21 2:44 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip changes of subject]
> >
> >In these changes, I wrote things that a sincere guileless person in your shoes would be deeply embarrassed about.
> >You are using a pathetic excuse for avoiding them, one so pathetic that the only regular that I see employing it frequently is jillery.
> There's a deep irony of the peter accusing others of "embarrassing"
> behaviors, since the peter has made same his virtual trademark.
>
> Not sure how any rational person gives the peter any credibility.

"the peter" repeated 8 times in two posts. Is that a record?

It is highly doubtful that any evolutionist atheist here would not think you credible.

[jillery]

The above is the peter's mindless parroting of right-wing nuttery. The
so-called "mandate" is based on the fact that transplant patients
necessarily receive medications which suppress their immune systems,
in order to mitigate organ rejection. Covid-19 is just one of many
vaccines potential transplant patients are required to get in order to
qualify for transplant.

The specific case which inspired this latest nuttery is of a person
who refused to get Covid-19 vaccine on religious grounds. I know of
no evidence the person ever had Covid-19, or was tested for Covid-19
antibodies.

>Maybe the paranoid rant that I snipped up there will give you second thoughts about that ignorant "'Nuff said"
>if you think long and hard about my question. But I doubt it.
>
>
>Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

My googlegroups does not list such thread title changes. I think you just said something about that.

[jillery]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 15:33:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>"the peter" repeated 8 times in two posts. Is that a record?

Wow! You can count to 8. Give yourself a gold star.

[Glenn]

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 4:05:14 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 15:33:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >"the peter" repeated 8 times in two posts. Is that a record?
> Wow! You can count to 8. Give yourself a gold star.
> --

Give yourself an enema, or 8.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

It no longer displays them in the "table of contents". Google Groups meant "our" favorite features when it promised us to have
all "your" favorite features.

You'll find the post under "Hunting," a thread you began. That's what the WAS in the title is all about.
If perchance you can't find it for some reason [It should be the last post or close to it.] the url should take you there.

Got to go now. Going on a field trip tomorrow and still needing to prepare. Catch you Monday.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 05:15:01 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You are burying your head in the sand, and I expect you to bury your head in the sand about this:
>earlier this week, Steve Krakauer reported that Florida has the lowest rate of new infections in the
>continental USA. And it happened in the absence of vaccine requirements, widespread business closures,
>mask mandates, and draconian lockdowns.
>
>Repeat to yourself: "Must be fake news. Must be fake news. Must be fake news. ..."

I acknowledge that Covid-19 cases are now going down in Florida.
However, this is from a peak in August 16, which had three times the
number of cases as the previous peak from last January. Since
DeSantis removed restrictions last May, if you're going to credit the
lack of restrictions for the current reduction, logically you need to
blame the lack of restrictions for that peak. Even a fake
mathematician hiding in a redneck diploma mill should know better than
to cherrypick the data.

[Glenn]

This assumes you know what logically means.

https://www.vox.com/22686423/covid-19-cases-rise-fall-florida-vaccines-weather

[*Hemidactylus*]

July 9 2021 38,157 Florida residents had died from COVID since the
beginning of the pandemic.

https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/health-news-florida/2021-07-09/florida-coronavirus-cases-positivity-rate-and-more-for-july-9

As of this week 58,803 have died.

http://ww11.doh.state.fl.us/comm/_partners/covid19_report_archive/covid19-data/covid19_data_latest.pdf

Just a very slight uptick of 20,646 in three months. DeSantis had predicted
this:

““I made comments at the end of April or beginning of May, I said ‘look,
this is a seasonal pattern, we knew it was going to be low in May and it
was low, and we knew when we got to the end of June, July, it was going to
go up, and it was because that’s what it did last year and it’s not unique
just to Florida,” DeSantis said.”

https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando/news/2021/07/13/governor-balks-at-new-restrictions-as-covid-cases-grow

Move along now. Nothing to see here. Don’t Fauci my Florida:

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/gov-ron-desantis-sells-dont-fauci-my-florida-merch-as-his-states-covid-19-cases-spike-11626287447

“How the hell am I going to be able to drink a beer with a mask on?”

He’s got a point.

So time for an emergency session because he is “winning”:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/florida-desantis-tweets-dont-tread-florida-flag-special-special-session-ban-jab-mandates.amp

https://twitter.com/GovRonDeSantis/status/1451231324241633281

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1282082

“Ladapo invoked anecdotal examples and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories
to argue against the vaccines, according to footage from WFLA, the NBC News
station in Tampa.

"I mean you hear these stories of people telling you what's been happening
in their lives, of nurses and pregnant women who are being forced to, you
know, to sort of put something in their bodies that we don't know all there
is to know about yet, no matter what people on TV tell you," he said during
an event with Gov. Ron DeSantis.”

Faced with this from the Governor and sidekick, still such insubordination
abounds:

https://www.wesh.com/amp/article/mayor-responds-to-desantis-outrage-firing-battalion-chief/38029108

“Demings said DeSantis cares more about "using firefighters as political
pawns than treating them as public servants."

He said he has been assured he is well within the bounds of the law to
enforce the vaccine mandate.

Demings said 58,000 Floridians have died due to failure of leadership and
to the governor: "bring it on."”

[jillery]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 21:29:54 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

Identify anything that I wrote which demonstrates it's illogical,


>https://www.vox.com/22686423/covid-19-cases-rise-fall-florida-vaccines-weather


Did you even read your cited article? It claims that Floridians
practice pandemic restrictions even without legal mandates. Even if
true, that would be evidence DeSantis' restrictions removal is
irrelevant to the number of cases, which is exactly the point I made
above. That's evidence you don't know what "logically" means.

Even better, the article claims Covid-19 peaks during extremes of
weather, both hot and cold, due to these extremes changing Floridians'
behavior. Even if true, that would be evidence against its previous
claim above, and instead evidence for Floridians' need to have legal
restrictions, in order to continue safe pandemic practices regardless
of the weather. After all, seasonal changes in weather shouldn't be a
surprise to anybody, not even DeSantis.

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/22/21 1:37 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> To understand where Mark Isaak is coming from, you need to remember how,
> the day of 2016 when victory by Trump was conceded, he wrote a rabidly paranoid
> screed in which he spoke darkly of a "need for insurrection" [against Trump, of course]
> if Trump made a power play towards dictatorship.

The insurrection on January 6 obviously shows that my worries were not
paranoia. I encourage everyone to learn the history of Germany between
the two World Wars. Obviously Nyikos has not.

Trump is not Hitler, of course. Hitler, unlike Trump, served with honor
in the military and had some appreciation of the arts. But they have
enough in common to be scary. What is even more scary is that there are
plenty more people besides Nyikos who support replacing democracy with
fascism in the United States, and are so blinded by partisanship and
propaganda that they don't even realize that's what they are supporting.

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/22/21 3:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]

> Senator Sinema comes to mind: she blistered Biden and Harris for the gross neglect of the border.
> Of course, she and Manchin are not typical of the party, and I believe Mark and Hemidactylus put her in the category
> of traitors to the party. How dare Sinema do a piece in the Washington Post defending the institution of the filibuster, eh?

You are, of course, wrong.

I wonder-- Out of all the times you have written, "I bet so-and-so
believes thus," have you *ever* been right? Even once?

[Glenn]

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 8:45:15 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/22/21 1:37 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > To understand where Mark Isaak is coming from, you need to remember how,
> > the day of 2016 when victory by Trump was conceded, he wrote a rabidly paranoid
> > screed in which he spoke darkly of a "need for insurrection" [against Trump, of course]
> > if Trump made a power play towards dictatorship.

> The insurrection on January 6 obviously shows that my worries were not
> paranoia. I encourage everyone to learn the history of Germany between
> the two World Wars. Obviously Nyikos has not.

You're advocating insurrection. Doubtful you recognize that.

I encourage you to provide empirical evidence to support the claim that Jan 6 was planned and directed by Trump.
You are likely aware of the current attempts to do just that. Apparently, you have no need of that,
but a need to invoke Hitler. This is irrational.

>
> Trump is not Hitler, of course. Hitler, unlike Trump, served with honor
> in the military and had some appreciation of the arts. But they have
> enough in common to be scary. What is even more scary is that there are
> plenty more people besides Nyikos who support replacing democracy with
> fascism in the United States, and are so blinded by partisanship and
> propaganda that they don't even realize that's what they are supporting.
> --

This is paranoia. Accusing Peter of being blinded by propaganda, "replacing" democracy and supporting fascism is almost insane.
Comparing Trump to Hitler, if sincere, is irrational, and a sign of extreme paranoia.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> On 10/22/21 3:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> [...]
>> Senator Sinema comes to mind: she blistered Biden and Harris for the
>> gross neglect of the border.
>> Of course, she and Manchin are not typical of the party, and I believe
>> Mark and Hemidactylus put her in the category
>> of traitors to the party. How dare Sinema do a piece in the Washington
>> Post defending the institution of the filibuster, eh?
>
> You are, of course, wrong.
>
> I wonder-- Out of all the times you have written, "I bet so-and-so
> believes thus," have you *ever* been right? Even once?
>

He’s no longer on speaking terms with me, but you’re not so lucky. Still he
did post this very interesting preprint lacking peer review so far as I can
tell:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.09.459504v1.full

Is there an opportunity cost in focusing on that article instead of talking
about me and you and others and helping Glenn derail his own thread with
marginalia?

Maybe he will speak at me not in the second person again through a reed
wall (much like Enki once did to Sumerian Noah).

[Glenn]

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 8:50:15 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/22/21 3:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > [...]
> > Senator Sinema comes to mind: she blistered Biden and Harris for the gross neglect of the border.
> > Of course, she and Manchin are not typical of the party, and I believe Mark and Hemidactylus put her in the category
> > of traitors to the party. How dare Sinema do a piece in the Washington Post defending the institution of the filibuster, eh?
> You are, of course, wrong.
>

Your beliefs and arguments are similar and closely aligned with those who make such claims or would not deny regarding Sinema as a traitor to the Democratic Party.
Your "of course" is, of course, wrong. Delusion follows irrational thoughts and paranoia. It also breeds deceit and deception. You have provided nothing with which to support your claim that Peter is wrong about you.

[Glenn]

So you have killfiled me, yet...

[jillery]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 08:46:46 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:

>On 10/22/21 3:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> [...]
>> Senator Sinema comes to mind: she blistered Biden and Harris for the gross neglect of the border.
>> Of course, she and Manchin are not typical of the party, and I believe Mark and Hemidactylus put her in the category
>> of traitors to the party. How dare Sinema do a piece in the Washington Post defending the institution of the filibuster, eh?
>
>You are, of course, wrong.
>
>I wonder-- Out of all the times you have written, "I bet so-and-so
>believes thus," have you *ever* been right? Even once?

That's not the kind of question that can be asked of a self-serving
compulsive liar and expect a useful answer.

[Glenn]

In that case it shouldn't be difficult for you to specifically identify something Peter has said is an intentional untruth, with evidence.
Coughing won't cut it, nor will "because I said so".
That Peter believes what he claims above does not constitute evidence of an intentional untruth. Many Trump haters, of which Mark clearly is,
have made "traitor" claims or other similar claims against Sinema. Mark is also sympathetic with the same people on other issues.
So it is not irrational to assume Mark, and you, are lying, and that Peter really does believe Mark would consider Sinema to be at the least, a traitor to the Democratic Party. That Mark responds with "of course" could be interpreted as implying there is evidence that Peter is wrong. There isn't.
And you don't have any evidence either. In fact, to pop in the thread to accuse someone of being a compulsive liar, devoid of any immediate context or evidence, is telling. More like what a compulsive liar would say.

[jillery]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 15:33:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 3:10:14 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 08:46:46 -0700, Mark Isaak
>> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 10/22/21 3:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> Senator Sinema comes to mind: she blistered Biden and Harris for the gross neglect of the border.
>> >> Of course, she and Manchin are not typical of the party, and I believe Mark and Hemidactylus put her in the category
>> >> of traitors to the party. How dare Sinema do a piece in the Washington Post defending the institution of the filibuster, eh?
>> >
>> >You are, of course, wrong.
>> >
>> >I wonder-- Out of all the times you have written, "I bet so-and-so
>> >believes thus," have you *ever* been right? Even once?
>
>> That's not the kind of question that can be asked of a self-serving
>> compulsive liar and expect a useful answer.
>> --
>In that case it shouldn't be difficult for you to specifically identify something Peter has said is an intentional untruth, with evidence.

I acknowledge that your description of what qualifies as a lie would
be relevant in most cases. However, in this case, the peter
explicitly identified what he regards as a lie, and that is the
definition I apply when I identify the peter's lies.

Apparently you don't recall that I reposted the peter's definition
many times, to the peter's expressed frustration and regret, as part
of my many citations of his many lies. To refresh your convenient
amnesia:

The peter's explicitly written definition of "lie":
***********************
<7eeaa862-e4bb-4617...@googlegroups.com>
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 17:54:36 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:

I classify as a lie any statement that the utterer has absolutely no
reason to think is true, but is done to intensely denigrate the person
about whom it is uttered.
************************

Note that "intentional untruth" isn't mentioned, Instead, the bottom
line is if the statement is done to denigrates the target. If so, then
according to the peter, the statement is a lie, even if it's true,
even if it's sincerely believed to be true.

>Coughing won't cut it,

You're confused. I use Usenet coughs to call attention to well-known
facts which absolutely disprove statements, like for example when a
village idiot stated "ID proponents do not presume that God intervenes
in any process."

>nor will "because I said so".

You're still confused. "because I said so" is what you and the peter
do, every time you fail to back up your willfully stupid comments.

>That Peter believes what he claims above does not constitute evidence of an intentional untruth.

Again, you're confused. The peter's statements above aren't the basis
for calling the peter a self-serving compulsive liar.

>Many Trump haters, of which Mark clearly is,
>have made "traitor" claims or other similar claims against Sinema. Mark is also sympathetic with the same people on other issues.
>So it is not irrational to assume Mark, and you, are lying, and that Peter really does believe Mark would consider Sinema to be at the least, a traitor to the Democratic Party. That Mark responds with "of course" could be interpreted as implying there is evidence that Peter is wrong. There isn't.
>And you don't have any evidence either. In fact, to pop in the thread to accuse someone of being a compulsive liar, devoid of any immediate context or evidence, is telling. More like what a compulsive liar would say.

Again, you're confused. The peter might sincerely believe his
statements above are correct. The peter's statements might even be
factually correct. None of that matters to the peter's explicitly
written definition of "lie", which I cited above, in case you
conveniently forgot again.

Since you have your knappies in a twist over my alleged label, how is
it that you don't challenge the peter's claims for the same reasons
you challenge me? By your own admission, the peter provided no
evidence of his expressed *opinions*.

[Glenn]

There is no doubt you are delusional.

[jillery]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 08:40:53 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:

>On 10/22/21 1:37 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> To understand where Mark Isaak is coming from, you need to remember how,
>> the day of 2016 when victory by Trump was conceded, he wrote a rabidly paranoid
>> screed in which he spoke darkly of a "need for insurrection" [against Trump, of course]
>> if Trump made a power play towards dictatorship.
>
>The insurrection on January 6 obviously shows that my worries were not
>paranoia. I encourage everyone to learn the history of Germany between
>the two World Wars. Obviously Nyikos has not.
>
>Trump is not Hitler, of course. Hitler, unlike Trump, served with honor
>in the military and had some appreciation of the arts. But they have
>enough in common to be scary. What is even more scary is that there are
>plenty more people besides Nyikos who support replacing democracy with
>fascism in the United States, and are so blinded by partisanship and
>propaganda that they don't even realize that's what they are supporting.

There were lots of people in non-German countries who supported Hitler
in part because they saw him as a liberator from Stalin and Communist
Russia, at least until they found out the hard way that Hitler viewed
them as Untermensch also. So it's unsurprising that people with ethnic
ties to countries which have been occupied by Russia in the recent
past would have strong anti-Communist feelings, and support anything
they believe opposes Communism, even to the point of supporting
fascism.

[jillery]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 13:37:44 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"

<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>To understand where Mark Isaak is coming from, you need to remember how,
>the day of 2016 when victory by Trump was conceded, he wrote a rabidly paranoid
>screed in which he spoke darkly of a "need for insurrection" [against Trump, of course]
>if Trump made a power play towards dictatorship.

<https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/charlie-kirk-gets-asked-at-tpusa-event-how-many-elections-are-they-gonna-steal-before-we-kill-these-people/ar-AAPYIzQ?li=BBnb7Kz>

<https://tinyurl.com/7akpbrmk>
*******************************
Roughly one hour and 12 minutes into the event, [Charlie] Kirk was
asked something the audience member himself deemed “a bit out of the
ordinary.”

“At this point, we’re living under corporate and medical fascism. This
is tyranny. When do we get to use the guns? No, and I’m not — that’s
not a joke,” asked the audience member. “I’m not saying it like that.
I mean, literally, where’s the line? How many elections are they going
to steal before we kill these people?”
*******************************

Add that to what I posted elsetopic:
*******************************
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/freshman-gop-congressman-under-fire-for-bloodshed-remarks/vi-AANX77B>

<https://tinyurl.com/6sx2v5uu>

Citing "continuing rigged elections", a pseudo-skeptic PRATT, newly
elected Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) says he's willing to use lethal
force against other Americans in order to enforce what he thinks
qualifies as "fair elections", echoing sentiments of other Republican
politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Josh Hawley.
*****************************

It ain't any kind of paranoid when it's true.

[*Hemidactylus*]

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210915/Natural-SARS-CoV-2-infection-induces-more-durable-immunity-than-vaccination.aspx#commentblock
> Excerpts:
> The findings revealed that the durability of antibody response was
> highest upon natural SARS-CoV-2 infection, with preservation of 60 to 80%
> of peak antibody levels for up to 220 days post-symptom onset. In
> contrast, the highest magnitude of antibody response was observed in
> COVID-19 recovered individuals who had received the first vaccine dose.
> Compared to COVID-19 recovered individuals, vaccinated individuals with
> or without vaccination showed a relatively higher peak antibody level. In
> fully vaccinated SARS-CoV-2 naïve individuals, the antibody levels after
> 134 days of second vaccination reduced to the levels observed in
> unvaccinated COVID-19 recovered individuals after 220 days of symptom onset.
> ...
> Importantly, a significantly higher neutralization efficacy against all
> tested variants (alpha, beta, gamma, and delta) was observed in
> unvaccinated COVID-19 recovered individuals than in vaccinated
> SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals. A comparable neutralization potency against
> the delta variant was observed in COVID-19 recovered individuals and
> first dose-vaccinated naïve individuals. However, a significant reduction
> in neutralization potency was observed after the second vaccine dose.
> This finding indicates that mRNA vaccine-induced cross-reactivity is
> lower than that induced by natural infection.
>
> The original research paper, which I haven't had the time to read yet:
> https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.09.459504v1.full
>
So have you had time to read it yet or did you get distracted by more
squirrels? It’s been almost a week since you put it forward…a preprint
lacking peer review.

Maybe you can wear your cape and use your super special signature line. Or
not.

[jillery]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 01:25:08 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 13:37:44 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
><peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>To understand where Mark Isaak is coming from, you need to remember how,
>>the day of 2016 when victory by Trump was conceded, he wrote a rabidly paranoid
>>screed in which he spoke darkly of a "need for insurrection" [against Trump, of course]
>>if Trump made a power play towards dictatorship.
>
>
><https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/charlie-kirk-gets-asked-at-tpusa-event-how-many-elections-are-they-gonna-steal-before-we-kill-these-people/ar-AAPYIzQ?li=BBnb7Kz>
>
><https://tinyurl.com/7akpbrmk>
>*******************************
>Roughly one hour and 12 minutes into the event, [Charlie] Kirk was

>asked something the audience member himself deemed ? bit out of the
>ordinary.?
>
>?t this point, we?e living under corporate and medical fascism. This
>is tyranny. When do we get to use the guns? No, and I? not ?that?
>not a joke,?asked the audience member. ?? not saying it like that.
>I mean, literally, where? the line? How many elections are they going
>to steal before we kill these people??

>*******************************
>
>Add that to what I posted elsetopic:
>*******************************
><https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/freshman-gop-congressman-under-fire-for-bloodshed-remarks/vi-AANX77B>
>
><https://tinyurl.com/6sx2v5uu>
>
>Citing "continuing rigged elections", a pseudo-skeptic PRATT, newly
>elected Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) says he's willing to use lethal
>force against other Americans in order to enforce what he thinks
>qualifies as "fair elections", echoing sentiments of other Republican
>politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Josh Hawley.
>*****************************

And here's another:
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rinos-stole-election-we-steal-lives-pennsylvania-gop-commissioner-details-death-threats/ar-AAQ2028?li=BBnbfcL>

<https://tinyurl.com/38fp573y>
*******************************
[Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt, the official responsible
for overseeing the 2020 election in Pennsylvania's biggest city] has
detailed death threats he received from supporters of former President
Donald Trump after refusing to back the ex-president's false claims
about massive election fraud.

[...]

Schmidt then read a message that demanded he "tell the truth or your
three kids will be fatally shot." The threatening message also
contained Schmidt's home address, the names of each of his children
and a picture of his house.

Other threats included the phrases "heads on spikes, treasonous
Schmidts," "perhaps cuts and bullets will soon arrive at [Schmidt's
address]" and "RINOs stole election, we steal lives." The alleged
threats admonished Schmidt for supposedly having "betrayed" the
country by not backing Trump's false claims and warned that "cops
can't help you."
******************************

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 12:20:15 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 08:40:53 -0700, Mark Isaak
> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
> >On 10/22/21 1:37 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> To understand where Mark Isaak is coming from, you need to remember how,
> >> the day of 2016 when victory by Trump was conceded, he wrote a rabidly paranoid
> >> screed in which he spoke darkly of a "need for insurrection" [against Trump, of course]
> >> if Trump made a power play towards dictatorship.
> >
> >The insurrection on January 6 obviously shows that my worries were not
> >paranoia. I encourage everyone to learn the history of Germany between
> >the two World Wars.

Here comes some propaganda made up off the top of Mark's head:

> > Obviously Nyikos has not.

I think I know it better than Mark, who gets it filtered by leftist sources. See some details below.

> >Trump is not Hitler, of course. Hitler, unlike Trump, served with honor
> >in the military and had some appreciation of the arts. But they have
> >enough in common to be scary.

"scary" is being devalued in this Halloween season. Mark's words remind me
of the old movie (?) title, "The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight" with him
leading the gang. And you, jillery, are acquiescing to his leadership below.


I've snipped a titanic libel against me by Mark, as potentially damaging,
if believed, as Mark's earlier libel that I want to take basic human rights away from gays.

I will attend to it later; too many papers to grade between now and tomorrow morning.
As to the part I left in above, I will be adding to the thread that has y'all stumped as to
how to do damage control:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/DjepbDmn00A/m/1deNFyYNAAAJ
CHEZ WATT: Hitler Is Compared Favorably with Trump
Oct 25, 2021, 11:40:15 AM

> There were lots of people in non-German countries who supported Hitler
> in part because they saw him as a liberator from Stalin and Communist
> Russia, at least until they found out the hard way that Hitler viewed
> them as Untermensch also.

Hungarians never saw Hitler that way.

You have to remember that England and France had
"declared war" against Germany when Poland was invaded, but
did absolutely no fighting in support of Poland. Hungary, whose only
seaport (Fiume, now Rijeka in Croatia) had been taken away after WWI,
was much more isolated from the Allies than Poland.

And they knew that they could not stay neutral. They were worried about the wrath of Hitler
for having admitted thousands of Polish refugees across their then-common border,
and for having occupied the Carpatho-Ruthenia that gave them that common border,
an action also unpopular with Hitler.

But after Romania sided openly with Hitler in 1940, the Hungarian government decided
there was no future in siding with the Soviet Union, and besides they saw Hitler as
the lesser of two evils after the Soviet Union's overwhelming the Finns in the closing weeks of an unexpectedly
bloody and long war [1]. So they reluctantly cast their lot with Germany in 1941.

[1] Somewhere near 100 days long. The massive initial Soviet attack was excused by "provocations by Finns on the border."
Mark Isaak uses similarly outlandish excuses for attacking me. Soviet attacks were
repelled with an efficiency somewhat like that shown by the Finns in not only repelling
the initial attack, but also taking the initiative, which included one of their divisions
capturing two Soviet divisions in Karelia. It is only because you and several others
have Mark's back that I am overwhelmed; so was Finland by close to 50 Soviet divisions
massed against the Mannerheim Line after Stalin's initial debacle.

> So it's unsurprising that people with ethnic
> ties to countries which have been occupied by Russia in the recent
> past would have strong anti-Communist feelings, and support anything
> they believe opposes Communism, even to the point of supporting
> fascism.

You are here swallowing Mark's libel hook and line. But you are careful not to name me here,
otherwise I would add "sinker, rod, and reel." And you don't need to add "fisherman" afterwards,
because we all saw how ardently you supported Hemidactylus after he posted a thoroughly
dishonest attack on me, and you'll be glad to do the same for Mark, I'm sure, if push comes to shove.


Peter Nyikos

PS Hungarians wound up saving thousands of Jews in the last years of WWII.
The husband of my wife's aunt was awarded the title, "Righteous Gentile," for his part in that humanitarian mission.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 11:25:14 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 8:15:15 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 15:33:07 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:

> > >In that case it shouldn't be difficult for you to specifically identify something Peter has said is an intentional untruth, with evidence.

No specific identification is given below, and so of course not evidence is given by jillery.

Instead, jillery only gets into the issue of what a lie is according to me, and
even if jillery weren't deceitful about it, it would not begin to meet your challenge, Glenn.

> > Apparently you don't recall that I reposted the peter's definition
> > many times,

I never posted any definition; I only mentioned one set of conditions that
I include under my definition of "lie". To the best of my knowledge, jillery
never posted any conditions under which 'e calls something a lie, but the
following is absolutely consistent with jillery's behavior over the years:

A lie sensu jillery includes any statement that puts jillery or one of her allies in a bad light,
especially if it is the truth and even sometimes if it is documented in the sense of science and law.
This is radically unlike jillery's "documentation" which, against "the peter" at least, is almost invariably in
the form of quoting something and labeling it a lie without any pretense at arguing that it is not the truth.

> > to the peter's expressed frustration and regret,

The only frustration is that jillery has ignored my telling, over and over that
it is not a complete definition and continued to lie that it is my definition of a lie, as 'e does below.

> > of my many citations of his many lies.

citations = "documentations" as described above.

>> To refresh your convenient amnesia:

The only convenient amnesia is jillery's, about (1) your request for a specific example and evidence for it and
(2) the clause, "that the utterer has absolutely no reason to think is true."

And jillery has absolutely no reason that you've had any amnesia: your question is untouched
by the only alleged "amnesia" jillery identified. And her sarcasm about "convenient amnesia"
is done to intensely cast doubt on your sincerity.

And so, using my standard CORRECTLY, jillery has uttered a lie.

> >
> > The peter's explicitly written definition of "lie":

Jillery is lying here too, in the usual sense of the term, as I've emphasized above.

> > ***********************
> > <7eeaa862-e4bb-4617...@googlegroups.com>
> > On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 17:54:36 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> > <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I classify as a lie any statement that the utterer has absolutely no
> > reason to think is true, but is done to intensely denigrate the person
> > about whom it is uttered.
> > ************************
> >
> > Note that "intentional untruth" isn't mentioned

That is the usual meaning of "lie," and I subscribe to that too.

On the other hand, jillery uses a "dark side of Humpty Dumpty" definition of "lie" that 'e does
not reveal but which allows jillery to ignore the clause, "that the utterer has absolutely no reason to think is true"
and to announce, "Liar [1]" in complete disregard of it.

> There is no doubt you are delusional.

That is true of the two-dimensional public persona that is "jillery," but not the person behind the facade.
That person's identity is a complete secret, and that person [or persons] cannot be assumed to share
in the delusional nature of the persona, any more than a ventriloquist shares any delusions of his/her dummy.


Peter Nyikos