Dr Strangetroll : or how I learned to stop arguing and be amused by the intransigence

[MurphyGuy]

This x1000. This is explained perfectly by Tom Nichols in his book The Death of Expertise.

I swear, I think I read that book, but I can't find it in my books folder.. I'm like 99% sure I read it sometime last year.. and if I'm mistaken, then it was a book that's very similar..

 

[grizzzman]

I don't debate science with people who don't understand even the basics of science. That would be akin to discussing my stock investments with a 6 year old.

Your condition, as well as most others, is our own fault.. We should have set and enforced educational laws and standards that restricted the graduating of students without a more comprehensive understanding of science.

What an authoritarian fascistic comment.

 

[MurphyGuy]

What an authoritarian fascistic comment.

I guess I can understand your perspective.. its all about perspective.

 

[Bob B]

I had downloaded the Stanford study and lost the original link to it ..... It can be found here...

DEFINE_ME

The text I snipped from it is the part that makes their conclusion VERY clear.

 

[Cdkipp]

I swear, I think I read that book, but I can't find it in my books folder.. I'm like 99% sure I read it sometime last year.. and if I'm mistaken, then it was a book that's very similar..

With regard to a particular strain of the flu Bob. I haven't read it but that is what all that period research is about. You still don't get this do you? It is rare-------- We give multiple vaccines for many diseases. OAS is not something that just happens.

If you had seriously looked at this issue you would know there is current research on OAS and Covid published just recently. If you look you will see I cited it on Twitter yesterday or the day before.

While were on the topic of you embarrassing yourself did you know that on the exact same day you were yapping about Ivermectin , the Together Trial, a full-scale clinical trial, ended on Ivermectin for "futility" after months of trial finding it performed no better than placebo on numerous endpoints? That is it. IVERMECTIN IS DEAD. What a surprise.

 

[Bob B]

With regard to a particular strain of the flu Bob. I haven't read it but that is what all that period research is about. You still don't get this do you? It is rare-------- We give multiple vaccines for many diseases. OAS is not something that just happens.

If you had seriously looked at this issue you would know there is current research on OAS and Covid published just recently. If you look you will see I cited it on Twitter yesterday or the day before.

While were on the topic of you embarrassing yourself did you know that on the exact same day you were yapping about Ivermectin , the Together Trial, a full-scale clinical trial, ended on Ivermectin for "futility" after months of trial finding it performed no better than placebo on numerous endpoints? That is it. IVERMECTIN IS DEAD. What a surprise.

Did you ignore the conclusion snippet I posted? Read the 2nd part of the paragraph and the last sentence.

 

[Cdkipp]

I had downloaded the Stanford study and lost the original link to it ..... It can be found here...

DEFINE_ME

The text I snipped from it is the part that makes their conclusion VERY clear.

Okay that IS current. I need to read it in detail. All they do is mention OAS though. Their conclusion is consistent with my understanding above. Here is their conclusion. WE DONT KNOW>

"Taken together, these results underscore important differences between SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses produced by vaccination versus infection. Key questions for the months and ll OPEN ACCESS Cell 185, 1025–1040, March 17, 2022 1037 Article years ahead include the duration of effective vaccine-stimulated serological responses after third-dose boosting or other repeated exposures, particularly for the recent Omicron variant and other variants that will emerge in the future, and the safety and efficacy of variant-targeting vaccine boosters in previously vaccinated or infected individuals. Further mechanistic investigations into the differences in antibody breadth elicited by vaccination and infection are needed to define the roles of T cell help, antibody affinity maturation, GC function, and innate immune responses to vaccine components, as well as the cellular and subcellular distribution of vaccine RNA and expressed antigen in lymphoid tissues. Lessons from the antibody responses to the initial SARS-CoV-2 variants are likely to be important both for preparing for future additional variants of this virus, as well as improving vaccination strategies for other pathogens such as influenza virus."

 

[Bob B]

Okay that IS current. I need to read it in detail. All they do is mention OAS though. Their conclusion is consistent with my understanding above. Here is their conclusion. WE DONT KNOW>

"Taken together, these results underscore important differences between SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses produced by vaccination versus infection. Key questions for the months and ll OPEN ACCESS Cell 185, 1025–1040, March 17, 2022 1037 Article years ahead include the duration of effective vaccine-stimulated serological responses after third-dose boosting or other repeated exposures, particularly for the recent Omicron variant and other variants that will emerge in the future, and the safety and efficacy of variant-targeting vaccine boosters in previously vaccinated or infected individuals. Further mechanistic investigations into the differences in antibody breadth elicited by vaccination and infection are needed to define the roles of T cell help, antibody affinity maturation, GC function, and innate immune responses to vaccine components, as well as the cellular and subcellular distribution of vaccine RNA and expressed antigen in lymphoid tissues. Lessons from the antibody responses to the initial SARS-CoV-2 variants are likely to be important both for preparing for future additional variants of this virus, as well as improving vaccination strategies for other pathogens such as influenza virus."

As usual ... when they find something they don't like .... further study is needed LOL

The snippet I have posted TWICE is perfectly clear .... and the real world experience in Hong kong and Israel support this finding.

'80% of serious COVID cases are fully vaccinated' says Ichilov hospital director

Vaccine has "no significance regarding severe illness," says Prof. Jacob Giris.

www.israelnationalnews.com

 

[grizzzman]

I guess I can understand your perspective.. its all about perspective.

View attachment 87958

To funny, but since I had told you several times " I'm not religious" What? no sky fairy nonsense?

 

[Cdkipp]

As usual ... when they find something they don't like .... further study is needed LOL

The snippet I have posted TWICE is perfectly clear .... and the real world experience in Hong kong and Israel support this finding.

'80% of serious COVID cases are fully vaccinated' says Ichilov hospital director

Vaccine has "no significance regarding severe illness," says Prof. Jacob Giris.

www.israelnationalnews.com

Well let's be honest Bob, you did not read this. This is written at the post-graduate level in immunology. I have spent an hour on it already. It will take me at least 20 hours to get through this and I might do it. It goes over my head very very quickly and I actually really have taken courses in this stuff and practiced as a BSN nurse within the last 10 years. The snippet is not perfectly clear Bob. seriously. In your own words go through that snippet and explain it to me.

As I read this so far the vaccines provoke a much stronger immune response than natural infection. Also a different immune response in that it produces more iGg antibodies than the others (even when someone has serious Covid the immune response from the vaccine is stronger) What this means isn't clear. In addition to the quote above, they say:
"
Although susceptibility to infection by viral variants is
common to both vaccinated and convalescent populations,
particularly as antibody titers decrease over time (Israel et al.,
2022; Levin et al., 2021), our findings lead to the prediction that
antibodies derived from infection may provide somewhat
decreased protection against virus variants compared with comparable
concentrations of antibodies stimulated by vaccination.

THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT BOB CLAIMS and they clearly think vaccines for the variants should be produced:

 

[Cdkipp]

Did you ignore the conclusion snippet I posted? Read the 2nd part of the paragraph and the last sentence.

View attachment 87959

So the quote Bob I need to dig into further but it is not really describing OAS. It certainly is not saying that you are better off not vaccinated. It is saying the overall immune response to a variant is stronger by someone that is immune naive. But being immune naive would set you up for serious illness or death

 

[Bob B]

So the quote Bob I need to dig into further but it is not really describing OAS. It certainly is not saying that you are better off not vaccinated. It is saying the overall immune response to a variant is stronger by someone that is immune naive. But being immune naive would set you up for serious illness or death

They describe it as OAS themselves .... so stop with the smoke and mirrors.

 

[Bob B]

Well let's be honest Bob, you did not read this. This is written at the post-graduate level in immunology. I have spent an hour on it already. It will take me at least 20 hours to get through this and I might do it. It goes over my head very very quickly and I actually really have taken courses in this stuff and practiced as a BSN nurse within the last 10 years. The snippet is not perfectly clear Bob. seriously. In your own words go through that snippet and explain it to me.

The snippet is in plain english .... not hard to understand.

As I read this so far the vaccines provoke a much stronger immune response than natural infection. Also a different immune response in that it produces more iGg antibodies than the others (even when someone has serious Covid the immune response from the vaccine is stronger) What this means isn't clear. In addition to the quote above, they say:
"
Although susceptibility to infection by viral variants is
common to both vaccinated and convalescent populations,
particularly as antibody titers decrease over time (Israel et al.,
2022; Levin et al., 2021), our findings lead to the prediction that
antibodies derived from infection may provide somewhat
decreased protection against virus variants compared with comparable
concentrations of antibodies stimulated by vaccination.

THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT BOB CLAIMS and they clearly think vaccines for the variants should be produced:

That PREDICTION is on a completely different subject from what I posted .... What I posted was a FINDING.

You want to run down LARGE observational study finding .... but PREDICTIONS is what you want to go with?

 

[Cdkipp]

Did you ignore the conclusion snippet I posted? Read the 2nd part of the paragraph and the last sentence.

View attachment 87959

Okay Bob. I got through it once at 2.5 hours. In addition to the post I made above here is the entire section in which the snippet you posted is taken. Wherever you got that. I think the entire article is impossible for laypeople to read butyou should get the drift. As I have been saying they do not know. They see a diminished immune response with both repeated infections and vaccinations but they don't know what that means long term or whether variant-specific vaccines will change that.

As additional variants of SARS-CoV-2 appear over time, individuals
will acquire distinct immunological histories depending
on which vaccines they received and which viral variants infected
them. The idea that ‘‘imprinting’’ by a prior antigen exposure
can shape, either positively or negatively, the response to a
subsequent variant is well established in studies of influenza viruses
and has been implicated in birth-year differences in susceptibility
to particular avian influenza viruses (Gostic et al.,
2016). We find that prior vaccination with Wuhan-Hu-1-like antigens
followed by infection with Alpha or Delta variants gives rise
to plasma antibody responses with apparent Wuhan-Hu-1-specific
imprinting manifesting as relatively decreased responses to
the variant virus epitopes, compared with unvaccinated patients
infected with those variant viruses. While current booster vaccinations
are still based on the Wuhan-Hu-1-like antigens, vaccine
manufacturers are in the process of evaluating updated vaccine encoding
sequences from one or more circulating variants. Initial
results from the third-dose boosting with Beta-spike-encoding
mRNA vaccines after prior second-dose mRNA-1273 vaccination
are consistent with our findings of significant imprinting of
serological responses by the first antigen encountered (Choi
et al., 2021; Chu et al., 2021), indicating that vaccine-derived
imprinting affects subsequent antibody responses stimulated
by vaccination as well as infection. The extent to which vaccine
boosting or infection with different variants will effectively elicit
antibody responses to new epitopes or rather increase responses
to the epitopes of antigens encountered previously,
as in the ‘‘original antigenic sin’’ phenomenon described for influenza
virus infection and vaccination (Arevalo et al., 2020; Zhang
et al., 2019), will be an important topic of ongoing study. The degree
of imprinting may depend on the particular variants and the
order in which they are introduced to the individual’s immune
system and the number of exposures, such as the number of
vaccine doses received. Additional data for evaluating the
magnitude of these effects and their consequences for protection
from infection are likely to become available in coming
months, as individuals with different histories of SARS-CoV-2
vaccination or viral variant infection become infected with the
more highly mutated Omicron variant (https://covdb.stanford.
edu/page/mutation-viewer/#omicron).

 

[Cdkipp]

They describe it as OAS themselves .... so stop with the smoke and mirrors.

No they don't I am quoting exactly what they say.

 

[Cdkipp]

Okay Bob. I got through it once at 2.5 hours. In addition to the post I made above here is the entire section in which the snippet you posted is taken. Wherever you got that. I think the entire article is impossible for laypeople to read butyou should get the drift. As I have been saying they do not know. They see a diminished immune response with both repeated infections and vaccinations but they don't know what that means long term or whether variant-specific vaccines will change that.

As additional variants of SARS-CoV-2 appear over time, individuals
will acquire distinct immunological histories depending
on which vaccines they received and which viral variants infected
them. The idea that ‘‘imprinting’’ by a prior antigen exposure
can shape, either positively or negatively, the response to a
subsequent variant is well established in studies of influenza viruses
and has been implicated in birth-year differences in susceptibility
to particular avian influenza viruses (Gostic et al.,
2016). We find that prior vaccination with Wuhan-Hu-1-like antigens
followed by infection with Alpha or Delta variants gives rise
to plasma antibody responses with apparent Wuhan-Hu-1-specific
imprinting manifesting as relatively decreased responses to
the variant virus epitopes, compared with unvaccinated patients
infected with those variant viruses. While current booster vaccinations
are still based on the Wuhan-Hu-1-like antigens, vaccine
manufacturers are in the process of evaluating updated vaccine encoding
sequences from one or more circulating variants. Initial
results from the third-dose boosting with Beta-spike-encoding
mRNA vaccines after prior second-dose mRNA-1273 vaccination
are consistent with our findings of significant imprinting of
serological responses by the first antigen encountered (Choi
et al., 2021; Chu et al., 2021), indicating that vaccine-derived
imprinting affects subsequent antibody responses stimulated
by vaccination as well as infection. The extent to which vaccine
boosting or infection with different variants will effectively elicit
antibody responses to new epitopes or rather increase responses
to the epitopes of antigens encountered previously,
as in the ‘‘original antigenic sin’’ phenomenon described for influenza
virus infection and vaccination (Arevalo et al., 2020; Zhang
et al., 2019), will be an important topic of ongoing study. The degree
of imprinting may depend on the particular variants and the
order in which they are introduced to the individual’s immune
system and the number of exposures, such as the number of
vaccine doses received. Additional data for evaluating the
magnitude of these effects and their consequences for protection
from infection are likely to become available in coming
months, as individuals with different histories of SARS-CoV-2
vaccination or viral variant infection become infected with the
more highly mutated Omicron variant (https://covdb.stanford.
edu/page/mutation-viewer/#omicron).

Also, understand that OAS isn't an on or off thing. They are gradations and it will depends on the variant, IF that it is what is happening. As they say:
The extent to which vaccine
boosting or infection with different variants will effectively elicit
antibody responses to new epitopes or rather increase responses
to the epitopes of antigens encountered previously,
as in the ‘‘original antigenic sin’’ phenomenon described for influenza
virus infection and vaccination (Arevalo et al., 2020; Zhang
et al., 2019), will be an important topic of ongoing study. The degree
of imprinting may depend on the particular variants and the
order in which they are introduced to the individual’s immune
system and the number of exposures, such as the number of
vaccine doses received. Additional data for evaluating the
magnitude of these effects and their consequences for protection
from infection are likely to become available in coming
months, as individuals with different histories of SARS-CoV-2
vaccination or viral variant infection become infected with the
more highly mutated Omicron variant (https://covdb.stanford.
edu/page/mutation-viewer/#omicron).

 

[Bob B]

Well let's be honest Bob, you did not read this. This is written at the post-graduate level in immunology. I have spent an hour on it already. It will take me at least 20 hours to get through this and I might do it. It goes over my head very very quickly and I actually really have taken courses in this stuff and practiced as a BSN nurse within the last 10 years. The snippet is not perfectly clear Bob. seriously. In your own words go through that snippet and explain it to me.

As I read this so far the vaccines provoke a much stronger immune response than natural infection. Also a different immune response in that it produces more iGg antibodies than the others (even when someone has serious Covid the immune response from the vaccine is stronger) What this means isn't clear. In addition to the quote above, they say:
"
Although susceptibility to infection by viral variants is
common to both vaccinated and convalescent populations,
particularly as antibody titers decrease over time (Israel et al.,
2022; Levin et al., 2021), our findings lead to the prediction that
antibodies derived from infection may provide somewhat
decreased protection against virus variants compared with comparable
concentrations of antibodies stimulated by vaccination.

THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT BOB CLAIMS and they clearly think vaccines for the variants should be produced:

Well .... at least it kept you busy for a while so we could be spared more post from you .....

I'm 100% sure that you have spent all that time merely trying to find something that would throw doubt on the finding I posted. Don't try to fool us into thinking you were trying to decipher the true meaning of the study.

 

[Cdkipp]

The snippet is in plain english .... not hard to understand.


That PREDICTION is on a completely different subject from what I posted .... What I posted was a FINDING.

You want to run down LARGE observational study finding .... but PREDICTIONS is what you want to go with?

No the prediction language is in the paragraph preceding the quote. They also don't know about OAS which they specifically say right below tthe language you quote. \

The extent to which vaccine
boosting or infection with different variants will effectively elicit
antibody responses to new epitopes or rather increase responses
to the epitopes of antigens encountered previously,
as in the ‘‘original antigenic sin’’ phenomenon described for influenza
virus infection and vaccination (Arevalo et al., 2020; Zhang
et al., 2019), will be an important topic of ongoing study.

 

[Cdkipp]

Well .... at least it kept you busy for a while so we could be spared more post from you .....

I'm 100% sure that you have spent all that time merely trying to find something that would throw doubt on the finding I posted. Don't try to fool us into thinking you were trying to decipher the true meaning of the study.

whatever BOb. I am giving you direct quotes. I am merely asking you to read the paragraphs surrounding the snippet you posted. Fair right?

 

[Bob B]

whatever BOb. I am giving you direct quotes. I am merely asking you to read the paragraphs surrounding the snippet you posted. Fair right?

The snippet I posted is clear enough to stand on it's own. Certainly clear enough for a person pause and wonder if the perpetual boosters they want to do is a good thing or not.
All you want to discuss is whether or not it is technically OAS or not. The imprinting they describe is very close to the same thing.

From Wikepdia that you guys love ...

Original antigenic sin, also known as antigenic imprinting​

 

[Cdkipp]

No the prediction language is in the paragraph preceding the quote. They also don't know about OAS which they specifically say right below tthe language you quote. \

The extent to which vaccine
boosting or infection with different variants will effectively elicit
antibody responses to new epitopes or rather increase responses
to the epitopes of antigens encountered previously,
as in the ‘‘original antigenic sin’’ phenomenon described for influenza
virus infection and vaccination (Arevalo et al., 2020; Zhang
et al., 2019), will be an important topic of ongoing study.

What I am saying in the simplest language possible is that this quote "
We find that prior vaccination with Wuhan-Hu-1-like antigens
followed by infection with Alpha or Delta variants gives rise
to plasma antibody responses with apparent Wuhan-Hu-1-specific
imprinting manifesting as relatively decreased responses to
the variant virus epitopes, compared with unvaccinated patients
infected with those variant viruses.

This does not mean there is an OAS problem as they themselves say in the same paragraph.

I can try to put in everyday language what that finding sentence means but I don't think you will read or believe it.

The vaccine is for the Wuhan virus. That virus has specific structure with sections called epitopes. A variant looks a lot like the Wuhan virus with most of the same epitopes but has some additional or different epitopes. They still have a lot of the same epitopes though. So they are different but there is a large area of overlap. So put those in two groups "Wuhan epitopes" and "variant epitopes".

What they found is that when someone is vaccinated for Wuhan and gets infected with a variant, the immune response of the vaccinated person will really go after the Wuhan epitope but will not have as an intense response to the variant epitopes (Anecdotally, this makes sense for why the varaint can infect a vaccinated person but much less likely to kill or hospitalize them). So, for variant epitopes only, a person that has never been infected or vaccinated before will have a more intense response to those specific epitopes. Now reread the finding sentence. Make sense?

Is this OAS? It could be as they say. Right now it has nothing to do with how sick you will get. You are far better off being vaccinated than not. What does it mean for future variants and future vaccines? That is going to depend on the makeup of the next variant (which we simply cannot know) and how if this is OAS, it impacts the effectiveness of new vaccines.

 

[Cdkipp]

The snippet I posted is clear enough to stand on it's own. Certainly clear enough for a person pause and wonder if the perpetual boosters they want to do is a good thing or not.
All you want to discuss is whether or not it is technically OAS or not. The imprinting they describe is very close to the same thing.

From Wikepdia that you guys love ...

Original antigenic sin, also known as antigenic imprinting​

Why do you do this? I have been saying what it is and that it is a real thing from the moment I started responding with the words "This is true".

That is not the issue Bob. It exists.



The best thing we can do remains stopping the virus which is why I keep hammering indoor air quality and continued masking.

 

[Johnson]

I dont NEED to provide a god damned thing to satisfy YOU.

You need to provide accurate information to satisfy me.

I made a statement to another user, NOT you, about my personal observations.

Your personal observations are meaningless to any one else but you.

I stand by that

Up to you.

and average speeds are not indicative of individual sections of a commute.

Absolutely.

If the average speed of a given freeway is 25mph this does not prove that the speed of 2-3 miles of it isnt 5 mph or even stopped on a daily basis, and could be 80mph in between!

Absolutely.

I sure as hell am not going to clear my browser cache to find your argument for you behind a paywall.

You don't have to look at any link I send you, you don't even need to find your own reliable information and stick with your own biases if that is what you want.

Why am I even arguing this point with you?

No idea, I am trying to teach you how you could make your point in a reasoned way.

You dont even live in this country let alone the region I live in, and admitted you work at home.

Why would you exclude people based upon the place they chose to live or where they work?

Who the hell are you to dispute what I experienced driving in rush hour traffic?

I can dispute your claims with the same conviction you make them, instead I provide verifiable sources.

I dont care if you believe me or not.

Ok.

Why dont you borrow a dollar from someone and buy yourself a life.

I am debt free, life is good.

Youre just being argumentive for the sake of it.

Trying to teach you how to use reason and logic, the only one who can get you out of the cult is you.

Oh yeah. Bob false claim Bob Bob Bob false claim

Yes, he made a false claim, why don't you acknowledge that he did?

Im saving lives people are dying because of Bob Bob Bobs false claim about Trumps unemployment.

Maybe by showing that Bob lives in lala land, people will see that his other false claims about invermectim are less than reliable.

Nobody gives a f***. We heard you the first time over a month ago.

Maybe YOU don't care about people lying, but normal people do.

You really need to seek professional help for this obsession over one post from Bob.

As long as Bob is posting his nonsense, I will keep exposing him as living in lala land.

 

[Cdkipp]

The snippet I posted is clear enough to stand on it's own. Certainly clear enough for a person pause and wonder if the perpetual boosters they want to do is a good thing or not.
All you want to discuss is whether or not it is technically OAS or not. The imprinting they describe is very close to the same thing.

From Wikepdia that you guys love ...

Original antigenic sin, also known as antigenic imprinting​

Also note that imprinting is supposed to happen. That is how our body remembers. Antigenic imprinting is different.

 

[Johnson]

Also note that imprinting is supposed to happen. That is how our body remembers. Antigenic imprinting is different.

Thanks for deciphering the papers, I have to admit, they are way over my head.

You ask Bob to read a small section of the paper he himself presented as "evidence" and the response is "I don't want to" (Because it doesn't agree with his bias)