Below is my column in The Hill on the increasing claims by Democrats that there is a “plot” to “steal” the 2024 election. President Joe Biden has returned to that claim in his last three major public appearances. In his press conference, President Biden referred to how Republicans want to “change the outcome of the election” and that the next election in 2024 could “easily be made illegitimate.” He added that “the increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed.” If that sounds familiar, it is because it what the Democrats accused Trump of doing before the 2020 election.
Here is the column:
Napoleon Bonaparte once observed that “History is a set of lies agreed upon.” The problem today is that there is little agreement on what the lies mean when lies attributed to one party are being used by the other party to achieve the same goal.
For months, President Biden, Democratic politicians, and some in the media have hammered away at “Trump’s Big Lie” of the 2020 election. They insist that former President Trump began months before the election to plant a false narrative that changes in election laws were part of an effort to “steal” the election. However, in the last few weeks, Biden and others are pushing their own “Big Lie” that state election laws are now being changed to steal the 2022 and 2024 elections. What is most striking is how these claims are detached from the actual laws themselves — the power of this claim being based entirely upon its repetition rather than its foundation.
After the 2020 election, some of us expressed skepticism over the claims of widespread fraud but waited to see the evidence presented in court. That evidence never materialized and, while I predicted an effort to challenge the electoral votes two days after the election, I wrote that calls to challenge the certification of the election were unfounded factually and legally.
Now it is the Democrats and some in the media who are declaring a “plot to steal” the 2024 election due to electoral changes in red states. The changes are being used as an excuse to federalize elections in the United States, an area that has been largely left to the states. Indeed, these laws are portrayed as such an attack on democracy itself that refusing to curtail the Senate’s filibuster rule is not a vote for preserving a long-protected rule of consensus but being an accessory to “election subversion.”
Biden’s embrace of rage politics has fueled the hysteria surrounding these laws. Last week, CNN’s White House correspondent Stephen Collinson denounced “a nationwide effort by GOP-run states to make it harder to cast ballots and easier to steal elections, which is rooted in ex-President Donald Trump’s voter fraud lies.”
The statement was telling. In responding to Trump’s “Big Lie,” Democrats and many in the media are doing something remarkably similar by claiming these state laws are an effort to steal the coming elections — claims that might fuel anger and violence similar to that seen after the 2020 election.
What is most notable about the relentless coverage of the effort to “steal” the election is the lack of specifics. Indeed, when President Biden has attempted to give specifics, he has received “Pinocchios” from Washington Post fact-checkers. He falsely and repeatedly claimed, for example, that the Georgia law (which he described as “Jim Crow on steroids”) sought to reduce hours to vote. The election law actually does the opposite: It guaranteed that, at a minimum, polls would remain open for a full workday while allowing extended hours commonly used on Election Day.
This month, President Biden pivoted away from the false claim of preventing people from voting to the more Trumpian claim of questioning whether ballots would be counted: “not as to who can vote but who gets to count the vote, count the vote, count the vote — it’s about election subversion, not just whether or not people get to vote.” Any vote miscount allegation can be (as it was with the Trump litigation) reviewed by the courts. Indeed, many of the provisions alluded to by Democrats have been reviewed and — at least temporarily — upheld.
Requiring voter identification has been repeatedly cited as clear evidence of an effort to steal the election. However, 80 percent of the public supports voter identification rules. The courts have overwhelmingly upheld these rules as constitutional.
Nevertheless, the drumbeat of the Democrats’ “Big Lie” continues. This month, Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman heralded Biden for confronting the “Big Lie” of Trump, but claimed that elections were still being stolen: “That dagger is still held at democracy’s throat. The lie about 2020 justifies and enables all the things Republicans are doing now to establish the means and the willingness to overturn the next election.”
Once again, Waldman does not actually state how the elections are being stolen. They just are, he says.
What is most interesting is how this claim is being amplified by Biden and others despite every indication that the public isn’t buying it, with election reforms barely registering on some polls as a major concern for voters. That is the problem with big lies. If the lies are not accepted by the public, they may just reduce faith in you rather than the election. Friedrich Nietzsche observed, “I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.” Biden seems to be facing such a Nietzsche moment. With polls showing the president plunging and voters turning toward the GOP, there is clearly doubt over whether there really is a “dagger at democracy’s throat.”
There are good-faith arguments over issues like voter identification and early voting. There are also good provisions in the election bill that should be adopted by states. Yet even the Atlantic and some CNN hosts have noted that some blue states have even stricter rules (including Biden’s own state of Delaware), but President Biden is not claiming that Democrats there are trying to steal elections.
States historically have been allowed to develop their own election rules. While many Democrats are calling for the federalization of elections as proof of faith in democracy, these state laws are the product of democratic processes. When President Biden went to Atlanta to denounce the Georgia law, claiming it was part of an effort to kill democracy, he was asking Georgians to support negating a law that Georgians created for themselves … in the name of democracy.
The fact is that democracy is protected by our courts — and by a host of laws protecting the right to vote and banning discrimination against minority voters. What is daunting is that this Democratic “Big Lie” is being promulgated by the president on the basis of fighting Trump’s “Big Lie.” It is like condemning Bigfoot sightings as the basis for creating a federal Bigfoot bureau.
The Democrats’ “Big Lie” may not be convincing the public, but it is clearly convincing the most extreme parts of their party. Lies can give license to those who are predisposed to violence on both sides, from Antifa to the Proud Boys. We have enough lies going into 2024. What we need is leadership.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Daniel says:
“Leave aside the lunatic conspiracy theories promoted by Sidney Powell and a few others.”
Those lies by Trump lawyers were promoted and broadcast to millions on Fox News, Newsmax, One America News Network and Infowars. Those conspiracy theories were part and parcel of Trump’s Big Lie. Fox, Newsmax and One America News are being sued for BILLIONS for defamation by Smartmatic and Dominion. You would be forgiven for NOT knowing about these huge lawsuits because Fox, Newsmax and One America did not report it. In fact, Turley buried his single mention of it in the middle of an article headlined about a defamation lawsuit by Project Veritas against the MSM. Turley has not breathed a word of it since- not surprisingly because Turley works for Fox.
No, we are not going to just “leave aside” those election conspiracy lies. In fact, Sidney Powell and Giuliani among other Trump lawyers are facing disciplinary hearings to possibly revoke their law licenses for alleging these lies in a court of law and thus committing a fraud upon the court. You would know that had Turley reported it on this blog, but he did not presumably because it is not a good look for his network Fox that the lawyers it heavily promoted have been determined to be liars.
You claim:
“This is not to say that there is proof that the declared result of the 2020 election was wrong, but rather that there are very good reasons to suspect that it was.”
Turley says that the evidence does NOT exist. He believes that Trump’s Big Lie caused the riot at the Capitol which he called a “desecration.”
STOP YOUR LYING!
JS, what in my statement is a lie? Though there is no proof, there are good reasons, set out in points 1-3, to suspect the declared result of 2020 was wrong. Maybe you think those aren’t good reasons for suspicion. If so, please explain why you think that.
Turley does not believe Trump’s Big Lie; neither do I. You keep these lies up, and we will have more violence from the Proud Boys, etc.
You do not say what in my statement was a lie, so I assume you cannot do so. Nor do you explain why points 1-3 are not good reasons to suspect the declared result was wrong, so I assume you also cannot do that.
Daniel,
“ You do not say what in my statement was a lie, so I assume you cannot do so.”
He did.
“ You claim:
“This is not to say that there is proof that the declared result of the 2020 election was wrong, but rather that there are very good reasons to suspect that it was.”
Turley says that the evidence does NOT exist. He believes that Trump’s Big Lie caused the riot at the Capitol which he called a “desecration.”
STOP YOUR LYING!“
He literally posted it AND explained why. How did you miss that?
Your words betray an ignorance undiscovered by yourself. You need to stop using pronouns and process the information. You have a lazy mind.
Turley does not raise the concerns that you do. If he shared them, he would so. That’s good enough for me. I trust his legal judgment on the legitimacy of the election, and I stand on his side of this debate. Case closed.
Where in my statement did I rely on what Professor Turley wrote? You clearly are unable to say which of my points was a lie, and why they are not good reasons to suspect the result.
I didn’t say YOU relied on something Turley wrote. I stated that TURLEY does not SHARE your 1-3 concerns. Turley knows more about election law than do you, and he is satisfied that Biden is the duly elected president.
Can you understand that?
You still have not said what in my statement was a lie or explained why my points 1-3 are not good reasons for suspicion. You must be unable to do either.
I’m not going to prevaricate with you. I’ve said more than enough. Take up your 1-3 points with Turley.
Daniel: I agree with your wording of what you did and did not say. I further stand by what I said, regarding Jeff’s and Svelaz’s statement about “evidence.” I would suggest that Professor Turley-not them- chose the correct word. That is to say, sufficient and admissible evidence that would have supported the allegations made by Trump’s attorneys was not presented to the court, i.e., “did not materialize,” –resulting in dismissal. This, of course, undermines the claim, -granted, -and I fault his attorneys for the hasty filings. But the good professor said no more and no less, and their expansive interpretation of what he said appears incorrect. Sadly, we will probably never know all that was done to influence the outcome, which is why I support SCOTUS’s decisions in upholding legislative changes and/or striking certain provisions of the VRA (especially Shelby, Brnovich),
Daniel, you are attempting to converse with a literal sock puppet. He lacks any intellectual heft, so notice he NEVER has a position. He can only hide behind a person that can do simple things like, think, reason, use logic. All he’s got is a list of talking points. He believes nothing
JeffSilberman: Professor Turley said, QUOTE, “That evidence never materialized.” JeffSilberman said, QUOTE: “Turley said that the evidence does NOT exist.” The legal distinction is clear. Daniel is well-capable of addressing your comments, but to anyone reading them before Daniel responds, I want to point out who was really lying about what was said.
Lin,
The evidence never materialized BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST! The audits prove it. Give it up. Turley is imploring Trumpists to stop the Big Lie once and for all. It has caused ENOUGH damage-
3 Rightwing networks being sued for defamation;
Lou Dobbs taken off the air;
Trump lawyers being sanctioned by at least one federal district judge;
Trump lawyers facing disbarment;
Conservative law professor John Eastman losing his tenure;
The impeachment of Trump;
The desecration of the Capitol;
Hundreds of rioters facing jail.
Turley is warning Trumpists that your continuing to lie that the election was stolen is dangerous to our country.
JeffSilberman: I would suggest that Professor Turley- not you- chose the correct words. That is to say, sufficient and admissible evidence that would support the allegations raised by Trump’s attorneys was not presented to the court, i.e., did not materialize, -resulting in dismissal.That is all that Professor Turley said- no more and no less.
Wrong. These lawyers perpetuated a fraud in a court of law by alleging in bad faith.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/25/powell-wood-trump-sanctions-506910
“The lawsuit to decertify President Joe Biden’s victory in the state should have never been filed, Parker said in her opinion.
“Further, they presented pleadings that were not ‘warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or establishing new law’ and contained factual contentions lacking evidentiary support or likely to have evidentiary support,” Parker said.
“On top of that, the judge recommended that the bar associations for each respective attorney investigate them for potential suspension or disbarment, noting that their involvement in the litigation showed they were unfit to practice law.”
—————
Hardly what you imply that the lawsuits were made in good faith and dismissed merely for lack of evidence.
I never implied any such thing. YOU and alter Svelaz were expansively talking about no evidence. True, there was apparently no presented evidence TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATIONS and cases were rightfully dismissed. that is ALL that was said. period. STOP THE NONSENSE.
The case was rightfully dismissed WITH monetary sanctions AND lawyers ordered to undergo 12 hours of legal education AND referred to Bar Associations for disciplinary actions!
“Trump-allied lawyers ordered to pay $175,000 in sanctions for abusing system.”
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-allied-lawyers-ordered-to-pay-175-000-in-sanctions-for-abusing-system-01638497204
Not your typical good faith dismissal for lack of evidence…. Tell the whole damn truth!
Are you capable of cogently discerning what I did and did not express in my comments/responses? Anyone reading them will agree that I ONLY discussed your mischaracterization of “evidence.” You are digging yourself in deeper, flailing about with comebacks and subjects neither mentioned nor avoided by me, -because I ONLY addressed your misrepresentation of what Professor Turley said about supportive evidence “not materializing.” end of comment, get it?
Please go back and read what the professor said; IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING his comment about “not materializing…” Note that what he said was: “….but waited to see the evidence presented in court. That evidence never materialized.” Your expansive interpretation of what he said is, quite frankly, incorrect.
“Conservative law professor John Eastman losing his tenure”
Please try to get the facts right. He did not lose his tenure. He retired.
“BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST!”
How do you know that?
And how do you square that with the evidence of voter fraud in GA?
Retired- forced to.
It does not exist in the quantity that would change the outcome.
It seems that there are video-recordings of approximately 55,000 ballots being illegally placed into drop boxes in Fulton County. That’s enough illegal votes right there to put Georgia in the Trump column,
Prove it.
The burden is on the goverment to PROVE the elections are NOT corrupted by fraud, not the other way around.
Absolutely right!
It’s already proven. There are video recordings of the ballot harvesters putting the ballots in the drop box. The same people over and over again.
If that were so, Turley would not state that the evidence does not exist of voter fraud. I’ll trust him not you.
“forced to.”
Yep. Via academic mobbing.
Voter fraud in GA “does not exist in the quantity that would change the outcome.”
How on earth do you know that? The Sec of State’s investigation is in progress.
I’ll take Turley’s word on it that evidence of massive voter fraud has not materialized. In any event, it’s too late to change the outcome. You should pay more attention to what Turley is saying. He is generally correct on all these matter.
Cant prove a negative. (this is simple logic stuff, a third grader can grasp.
Keep dreaming.
You keep falsely claiming that one “Cant prove a negative.” Your mind is apparently closed to all of the evidence to the contrary. For example, Turley did not say in this column that “iowan2 is dishonest.” How do we prove that negative? We simply check the text of the column and show that the quoted text doesn’t appear in the column.
How many more times are you going to falsely claim that one cannot prove a negative before you finally accept that you’re wrong? You evidently prefer to believe a lie instead of learning.
That is proving an affirmative. I simple search proves the affirmative.
The un-provable negative would be. “Turlely has never communicated with iowan2”
That is impossible to prove.
You can disprove the statement by finding a communication.
But lacking that evidence does not PROVE it has never happened.
Stop arguing about stuff you are ignorant of.
“That is proving an affirmative.”
No, “Turley did not say in this column that ‘iowan2 is dishonest’” is a negative claim.
If you don’t understand that, your problem is even bigger than I’d realized.
The truth of that negative claim can be proven by reading the entire text of this column and demonstrating that the internal quote doesn’t appear: he doesn’t mention you at all in the column, much less make that specific statement about you.
You’re trying to substitute a different negative claim. I have not asserted that all negative claims can be proven, only that some can. The counterexample demonstrates that your claim that one “Cant prove a negative.” is false. One can prove some negatives.
“Stop arguing about stuff you are ignorant of.”
You’re the one who is ignorant here.
Here’s another example: a greatest prime number does not exist. Can you agree that that’s a negative claim?
My example explains it. “Turley has never communicated with iowan2” . That cannot be proven. It’s a negative. It can be disproven. NOT PROVEN
Are are crossed up between dis-prove and prove
“Turley has never been in communication with iowan2” can only be dis proven. It cannot be proven. Because you cant PROVE a negative
Again: MANY negative claims CAN be proven.
Here’s an example: a greatest prime number does not exist.
Can you agree that that’s a negative claim? You ran away from answering.
I and many other people can prove that negative claim.
Just because some negative claims can’t be proved, that does not imply that negative claims can’t ever be proven. Some can, and others can’t. It’s analogous to proving positive claims: just because some positive claims can’t be proved, that does not imply that positive claims can’t ever be proven. Some can, and others can’t.
“you cant PROVE a negative”
SOME negative claims CAN be proven. For example, we can prove the negative claim “a greatest prime number does not exist.”
Lin,
“ JeffSilberman: Professor Turley said, QUOTE, “That evidence never materialized.” JeffSilberman said, QUOTE: “Turley said that the evidence does NOT exist.”
The fact that the evidence is STILL has not materialized means it doesn’t exist.
Even multiple audits from Republican legislatures including Arizona’s now infamous cyber ninjas audit showed the evidence of such claims simply did not exist. Jeff fully explains why it is a lie.
Svelaz: I would suggest that Professor Turley-not you- chose the correct word. That is to say, sufficient and admissible evidence that would have supported the allegations made by Trump’s attorneys was not presented to the court, i.e., “did not materialize,” –resulting in dismissal. This, of course, undermines the claim, -granted, -and I fault his attorneys for the hasty filings. But the good professor said no more and no less, and your expansive interpretation of what he said appears incorrect.
Professor Turley’s exact words: “…but waited to see the evidence presented in court. That evidence never materialized.” This was the only misrepresentation made by you that I even mentioned.
(the legal distinction being that Professor Turley was addressing the lack of specific evidence in support of specific allegations made by Trump’s attorneys, e.g., Turley said, “…but waited to see the evidence presented in court. That evidence did not materialize.” I would suggest that Silberman, assumedly not having read those various pleadings, does not know what evidence does not exist.
(the legal distinction being that Professor Turley was referring to the lack of specific evidence presented in support of specific allegations made by Trump’s attorneys, to wit, said Turley, “…but waited to see the evidence presented in court. That evidence never materialized.”) I am precisely referring to Turley’s exact words, and Silberman’s exact words, and extra-contextual and more-global interpretation.
I didn’t see you quote a lie, though you told quite a few. The real instigator was Lin Wood, who should be swinging from a lamppost, “The Big Lie” as you refer to it was a bonanza for DEMOCRATS. You got control of the Senate as a result of all the bluster about voting machines. But you people always over-reach. We’ll see how things work out for you next time.
(hope you didn’t mean me…I am not Lin Wood,
“ Outlaw public unions making political donations or ads!”
So…you’re against free speech.
Anonymous the Stupid thinks someone is trying to outlaw free speech. How Stupid! Who said that likely didn’t want union members to give their money to political candidates they didn’t support. That makes sense, but to Anonymous the Stupid, everything is upside down. ATS does not support free speech. He is a fascist of the Stalin / Mao type.
Will this be one of the posts to disappear? I don’t know but ATS is playing a dirty game.
Anonymous, posts shouldn’t disappear. That would be a pattern of censoring speech on a blog promoting the importance of free speech.
Svelaz, posts are deleted by Darren every day for no good reason. I’ve started archiving some pages on the Internet Archive as evidence.
Anonymous the Stupid is getting ready to sue the Turley blog. Let’s all get ready to laugh.
Get that dog sh1t off my back lawn.
Once again, you invent false scenarios to attack, because you’re too hate-filled to restrict yourself to truthfulness.
It’s totally legal for Turley to delete comments. It’s just hypocritical. He repeatedly says things like “The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech” while he has Darren remove both good and bad speech.
This isn’t your lawn. It’s his.
Response above in case maintenance comes by to clean up after you.
Anonymous the Stupid, I have invented nothing. You lie and deceive. Look at how much time you spend on the blog and now you are creating ” some pages on the Internet Archive as evidence.”
Evidence you say. You are a fool but it is totally legal for anyone to remove dog sh!t from their back lawn. I want to make it perfectly clear where I stand. In the meantime you are collecting dog Sh1t and packaging it.
As I wrote to Svelaz:
Svelaz, Anonymous the Stupid’s post disappeared, but why shouldn’t it? This is Turley’s backyard. When a dog sh!ts on your backyard, do you clean it up and get rid of it or do you let it fester so that your entire backyard is full of cr-p?
Turley has a right to remove the sh!t from his backyard and keep it clean. Have most people on both sides of the aisle had their posts consistently deleted? No.
I pay a man to keep my backyard clean and keep unwanted dogs and the like off my property. Why shouldn’t Turley have that same right?
“Anonymous, posts shouldn’t disappear. ”
Svelaz, Anonymous the Stupid’s post disappeared, but why shouldn’t it? This is Turley’s backyard. When a dog sh!ts on your backyard, do you clean it up and get rid of it or do you let it fester so that your entire backyard is full of cr-p?
Turley has a right to remove the sh!t from his backyard and keep it clean. Have most people on both sides of the aisle had their posts consistently deleted? No.
I pay a man to keep my backyard clean and keep unwanted dogs and the like off my property. Why shouldn’t Turley have that same right?
S. Meyer,
“Outlaw public unions making political donations or ads!”
Political donation are free speech according to the Supreme Court in the citizens United ruling.
“ Who said that likely didn’t want union members to give their money to political candidates they didn’t support.”
GEB didn’t say that. You don’t get to put words in other people’s mouths in order to make a false claim. You don’t get to dictate what other people are thinking. That would make you a leftist.
Public unions making political donations is free speech. Outlawing it is an infringement of free speech.
I agree it is free speech. This is why I oppose the very concept of a Public Employee’s union. No organization that puts the public with those hired to serve them into an adversarial relationship should be allowed to exist.
Let’s make this easy. If it furthers a leftist cause and “wokeness”, it isn’t a lie, right?
We could end the culture wars tomorrow, if “deplorables” would agree to the following:
White men will be demonized on the basis of their race and sex
Free speech is harm and “trauma”, in fact rightist speech is violence and BLM, ANTIFA violence is “free speech”
Every major institution in the United States has been captured by elites who subscribe to woke progressive ideology; just accept this as the new order
Every monument of a cisgender heterosexual White male who represents the old America like Thomas Jefferson will be torn down for being racist and problematic. The calendar will be replaced by new holidays. We will trade Columbus Day for Indigenous Peoples Day and Independence Day for Juneteenth. History has already been rewritten
The federal government, military, law enforcement and “intelligence community” will be staffed by commissars who will purge anyone who doesn’t subscribe to woke progressive ideology
The “intelligence community” will be unleashed on “extremists” who question or dissent from woke progressive ideology
The internet will be systematically censored to repress anyone who dissents from woke progressive ideology
Banking will be reserved for those who subscribe to woke progressive ideology as will other privileges like flying on planes
Woke progressive ideology will become a litmus test to hold a professional class, academic or corporate job with those who remain inside these institutions self censoring until they are identified and doxxed and hounded out of employment by mobs
The judicial system will become the social justice system and will punish (or choose not to punish) people on the basis of their race, sex and ideology
The public schools will indoctrinate children in CRT and gender fluidity and doubtlessly other things which haven’t been imagined yet
The border will be abolished; after all borders are racist
Books will be censored by Amazon on the basis of woke progressive ideology
Law enforcement will either be defunded, dismantled or repurposed toward hunting down and arresting dissenters
It is important to understand that the Bill of Rights has been nullified. Some protected classes will continue to enjoy constitutional rights and civil liberties while “extremists” will not. Silence is violence. It is not violence to engage in physical violence against people who dissent from woke progressive ideology who no longer have rights
We can expect further innovations on the medical front in the name of protecting public health. Racism and gun violence have already been declared public health emergencies
Wealth will be systematically redistributed from cisgender heterosexual White males to BIPOC and other “marginalized” groups
At some point, we will get around to reparations and land redistribution like in South Africa
So, these are the the leftist conditions to preserve America in its current form. Is this really too much to ask to stop “fascism” and “authoritarianism”?
S@@tlibs, did I miss anything on the “woke” agenda that you wish to implement? Please advise.
I THINK IT IS TIME FOR A NATIONAL DIVORCE.
antonio
“I THINK IT IS TIME FOR A NATIONAL DIVORCE”
No. That would be catastrophic for everyone.
Best long-term solution would be for everyone to take a long, hard look at themselves, honestly, to see where we each could be more honest, more fair-minded, more humble, and more inclined to do what is right. Are we playing games with people or are we playing the same game for a good society? (Heaven knows I need to keep figuring out the best ways to interact and communicate with others.) I don’t want a divorce. I want the political shenanigans and manipulative game-playing to stop; it is not good in the long run.
@prarierose
I read your posts and know you mean well. In fact, we would agree on many things BUT we aren’t going to vote our way out of this in the long run.
antonio
Antonio,
” BUT we aren’t going to vote our way out of this in the long run.”
I agree that we cannot just vote our way out of this. The voting is actually towards the end of the process. What must come before, but has been neglected for too long, is discussion and civil persuasive debate with our fellow Americans.
When held with a spirit of goodwill and on the foundational ideas of self-governance and what fits into a constitutional republic, people can start asking themselves in what ways we should secure our self-governance and the rights endowed in us by our Creator. We should be talking with our neighbors and then our legislators.
All this consideration and weighing and wrestling must come before voting.
Sorry, but I refuse to be rules by nuts, and I have no desire to rule over them. I just want us to go our own separate ways. Like to old saying goes: “Don’t go away mad, just go away.”
There is another saying that goes something like: don’t go to bed mad, stay up and fight. It has its limits (sometimes we just need to cool off), but it gets to the idea that we should put in the extra time to work out our differences rather than sleep with resentments.
Democrats have no one on their bench since Joe and Kamala have failed spectacularly. Or do they? Rumor is that in order to maintain their hold on power and continue the destruction of this country, they are looking at Michelle Obama who is making plans. The country will be doomed.
Insurrection time?
@jeffsilberman
What are you, a Fed? The answer is NO. Leftists such as BLM and the Brave, Masked, Wonderful, Warriors of Antifa ™ are the only ones allowed to cause an insurrection (if done “mostly peacfully”).
antonio
Trumpists are “all hat and no cattle.” They talk about the country being on the precipice of the abyss, taking their country back, the election being stolen, yada yada yada.
But the fact that they deny that 1/6 was an attempt at an insurrection proves that they don’t believe that they won’t have a country unless they take over by force.
If you really believed your crapola, not only would you, but you should, engineer an insurrection!
You Trumpists yellow?
@jeffsilberman
I don’t want to “take the country back”, I want a DIVORCE. I don’t even want to tell you how to think or live, I just hope you have to live with the result of the policies you support have created and not escape due to your economic standing. Hint – it isn’t going to be a leftist, multicult utopia, more like Brazil or South Africa on steroids. And BTW – you’re opinion of me and others similarly situated means nothing.
Dare you to answer my post from 10:11 this morning with more than just name calling. As an erudite and morally superior leftist, I am sure you can justify support for the items in the leftist bucket list.
antonio
I pass.
@jeffsilberman
Of course you pass! Nothing there you can disagree with as long as you don’t have to personally get your hands dirty. Lefists love to preach but avoid the direct consequences whenever possible. Tell you what, I am going to pose as a leftist Hispanic (the kind you claim to like) in this blog one day and as a good leftist yourself, you’ll have to suck up.
Twenty years ago I used enjoy the dialogue with some lefties, had a good friend in college who was a DSA guy; very sincere and decent but people don’t have those friendships anyone. I see few leftists who will actually engage on the issues, they just want to name call, doxx and destroy,
antonio
I’ll grant you a divorce. I get to keep the country. You have to take your clothes and move out.
@jeffsilberman
NO, I will take the divorce but it must be equitable and fair. You can’t leave your partner destitute, especially one who contributed to the marriage over a long period. Of course, I do not expect you to agree to those terms. I can imagine what legal (and other disabilities) you would implement on people like me if you were able but you won’t touch that one, probably too honest and a bridge too far.
Who hates who the most? I think your average “MAGA, God and Country” type is well meaning but naive as to their opposition. They see leftists as simply wrong and misguided (but that is changing and will change when they realize they cannot “vote” their way out of the current situation). Leftists despise their opponents because people like me are standing in the way of implementing a utopia.
antonio
You say:
“Leftists despise their opponents because people like me are standing in the way of implementing a utopia.”
I’ve never met you. I can’t hate someone I’ve never met who has never done me wrong. I pity you for being too gullible to see through Trump’s BS. There is no such thing as a utopia, but this country would be a hell of a lot better off if we didn’t have an “absurd reality television star” – as Turley called Trump- as a presidential contender.
@jeffsilberman
Gullible? Can’t see through Trump’s BS? I can assure you that I have never viewed Trump as lefties viewed Obama in 2008; nor do I view Trump as a “messianic” figure who is going to save America.
I try to be realistic and see the world as it is. Having an IQ in the top 5% probably doesn’t hurt.
Wait until the next Trump figure comes along but one with good political skills. Trump did move the Overton window and for that I am glad but was a terrible politician. We aren’t going back to the Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush type Republicans. And I think leftists realize this.
As for a divorce, I think the country is too divided and unless one side is prepared to totally destroy the other, these divisions will continue, neither of us will solve them, I will not even try to do so.
I can very well see secession happening from the left if a Trump like candidate wins in 2024 and I welcome this.
antonio
Antonio says:
“nor do I view Trump as a “messianic” figure who is going to save America.”
I dare say that you are in the minority of Trumpists. Most of the Trumpists who volunteered an answer here agreed with Trumpist Ted Nugent’s statement that Trump was sent by god. You don’t? Huh!
By the way, Turley called Nugent a “true lunatic.”
Antonio,
“Having an IQ in the top 5% probably doesn’t hurt.”
???
What does having a high IQ have to do with being a realist?
Like the adage “Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining” don’t look at a riot and try to tell me it’s in insurrection. I may have been born at night, but I wasn’t born last night. Repeating a stupid lie over and over does not make it the truth. No one but the deluded true believers care, and they are beyond treatment.
That was not an insurrection. It was an engineered distraction designed to manipulate and divide us.
Rose,
I have agreed that 1/6 was not an insurrection. I prefer Turley’s description, namely, a “desecration” of our Capitol. While most people committed wanton vandalism, there were a few who formed a lynch mob looking to hang Pence.
It was a Fed-surrection.
Jeff S.,
I am glad you agree it was not an insurrection. From your mouth to other liberals’ ears. I just heard “the insurrection of Jan. 6” from a Democrat again today.
Rose,
I don’t deny that the MSM is hyping the riot if you will concede that Fox is downplaying it. Each is pandering to their audience. Turley is alone in calling it a “desecration” which NONE of his Fox colleagues will do. I give him credit for that.
On the other hand, Turley will not criticize his Fox brethren for downplaying 1/6. Nor did he condemn his Fox colleague Tucker Carlson for his “documentary” called “Patriot Purge” which claims that 1/6 was a false flag operation. This lie was the last straw for 2 long-term Conservative Fox commentators and a News anchor to quit Fox. Did Turley have any comment about these employees abandoning Fox? None whatsoever. That is shameful.
Jeff,
“I don’t deny that the MSM is hyping the riot if you will concede that Fox is downplaying it.”
I cannot comment on either since I do not watch either so I’m not sure how they are framing it. No tv in our house. I pretty much ignore anything having to do with Jan. 6 since the whole thing is a sort of legerdemain. A persuasion/propaganda/psyop mess. The whole point of it is to manipulate and divide us.
“Turley will not criticize his Fox brethren for downplaying 1/6.”
As distasteful as 1/6 was, no one knows what really happened behind the scenes. Those things are being kept secret by the Democrats and Pelosi. That is a strong indicator of their guilt. They are doubling down and have become McCarthy type actors destroying the civil liberties of their fellow Americans.
And Trump is assisting in revealing what happened behind the scenes by voluntarily turning over all his White House documents and demanding that all his lieutenants to willingly go before the 1/6 committee to testify truthfully. There has never been a more cooperative ex-president to assist the Congress in getting to the truth. You must be very proud of your leader. His unimpeachable honesty makes him a role model for every American.
There is nothing wrong with a non-partisan investigation detailing everything that happened, including records from all. That is not what we are seeing. The first records to be released should have been Nancy Pelosi’s, including everyone directly or indirectly in contact with her. That is how one achieves honesty in government. Then with clean hands, Pelosi and others could find out exactly what happened.
The problem is her hands are not clean, and neither are the hands of the DOJ or the committee, which are repeating the abuses of the McCarthy era.
You have nothing to say because you admittedly know nothing and never deal with facts or even the truth.
Who are you?
Who do you want me to be?
The biggest lie was the Russian collusion hoax.
What percentage of the powers-that-be and these political parties is deadwood? It is a fearful question.
Is the corruption as endemic as Covid? What is the purpose of these nasty political games? Power over each other or power over us? Cui bono?
https://youtu.be/LgkjbInU0Dw
Turley sure loves his generalities so he can portray himself as “non-partisan”.
“ When President Biden went to Atlanta to denounce the Georgia law, claiming it was part of an effort to kill democracy, he was asking Georgians to support negating a law that Georgians created for themselves … in the name of democracy.”
Georgians didn’t create this law for themselves. It was given to them by conservative think tanks, those “model legislation” laws distributed by such outfits. A small number of individuals rushed those laws thru. The public wasn’t clamoring for such changes only those who stood to benefit from them did.
There is a false parallelism between the concerns expressed about the 2020 election and those being expressed about the 2022 election.
Leave aside the lunatic conspiracy theories promoted by Sidney Powell and a few others. There are real concerns about the integrity of the 2020 election in several states where the margins of Biden’s victory were very small:
1. Mail-in voting was expanded dramatically while the traditional means of ensuring the legality of votes by mail were significantly relaxed or eliminated. Mail-in voting fraud is notoriously difficult to uncover after the fact, which is why it is usually restricted and made subject to verification procedures. The number of illegal mail-in votes in 2020 is and will remain unknown, but there is every reason to suspect it is high. The much reduced rejection rates suggest this is the case.
2. Election officials and judges unconstitutionally changed the rules for voting notwithstanding legislation dictating otherwise. Moreover, more relaxed rules were applied by local officials in blue counties than in red counties.
3. Illegal votes were counted when they should not have been. This has been shown in Georgia, where the number of people who voted in one county after moving permanently to another county more than 30 days before Election Day exceeded the margin of Biden’s victory. The recent decision in Wisconsin shows that tens of thousands of drop-box votes should not have been counted, in excess of Biden’s margin of victory. There are many other plausible claims of unlawful votes being counted.
These are genuine reasons to suspect the integrity of the 2020 election. There is nothing, on the other hand, that can be pointed to about the new laws that raises questions about the integrity of the upcoming 2022 election. They generally make it easier to vote compared to the pre-2020 norms, and as Professor Turley pointed out, the rules in states like Georgia, maligned as Jim Crow 2.0, are more expansive than those in Delaware, New York and many other blue states. Nor is there anything in them suggesting that the election will be subverted by changes to the rules about who gets to count the votes, as Biden has falsely claimed. The rules about removing local election officials for malfeasance in the Georgia law, for example, are substantially the same as those in the federal voting rules bill proposed by the Democrats that the Senate just failed to approve.
So, saying that concerns about the integrity of the upcoming election are parallel to those regarding the integrity of the 2020 election is untrue. The concerns about 2022 have no basis while those about 2020 do. The former is in fact a “big lie” while the latter is not. This is not to say that there is proof that the declared result of the 2020 election was wrong, but rather that there are very good reasons to suspect that it was.
Agreed. Adding…Is it not the job of the Supreme Court to settle disputes between the States? Texas, with more than 20 others joining their case, wanted to know why a handful of counties in Pennsylvania, and others, were allowed to ignore their own voting laws set by their State legislatures. Texas claimed, by allowing votes that didn’t meet Pennsylvania law to be included, the legal votes case in Texas the rest of the nation were effectively nullified. The Court was negligent in not allowing Texas to have it’s case heard. There would have been no harm, and as a matter of national interest, would have put to rest the issue of how much leeway does any election official have in any precinct to ignore their own state’s election laws on the books prior to any election.
JAFO,
“ Texas claimed, by allowing votes that didn’t meet Pennsylvania law to be included, the legal votes case in Texas the rest of the nation were effectively nullified. The Court was negligent in not allowing Texas to have it’s case heard.”
Texas had no standing. No state has a right to dictate what another state should do regarding its own laws. If Texas had standing to sue Pennsylvania for “not following” it’s own laws then California would have had the right to sue Texas for its abortion law. The court ruled correctly.
This is an opinion from a person who can’t admit he is wrong when the FDA paper is put in his face and tells him that what he thinks are the same are really legally different.
Daniel,
“ 1. Mail-in voting was expanded dramatically while the traditional means of ensuring the legality of votes by mail were significantly relaxed or eliminated. Mail-in voting fraud is notoriously difficult to uncover after the fact, which is why it is usually restricted and made subject to verification procedures. The number of illegal mail-in votes in 2020 is and will remain unknown, but there is every reason to suspect it is high. The much reduced rejection rates suggest this is the case.”
Mail-in voting fraud is just as difficult to do as in person voting. What you are arguing is that absence of evidence is evidence. That’s not proof that your assumption is correct. As it is with the subject of Turley’s column and using your rationale democrats claiming the next election will be stolen can be a valid reason because there’s no evidence republicans are rigging the next election. Obviously you wouldn’t accept that, but you do with mail-in voting?
“ 2. Election officials and judges unconstitutionally changed the rules for voting notwithstanding legislation dictating otherwise. Moreover, more relaxed rules were applied by local officials in blue counties than in red counties.”
That is a lie.
None of the changes made in those states were deemed unconstitutional by the courts, even the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined the changes were indeed allowed by statute approved by their own legislators.
The reason why many Republican legislatures changed laws AFTER the election was because the preceding laws did make such changes legal. Not a single challenge to those changes proved they were unconstitutional or illegal. If you believe so provide a court ruling specifically stating they were unconstitutional or illegal.
“ 3. Illegal votes were counted when they should not have been. This has been shown in Georgia, where the number of people who voted in one county after moving permanently to another county more than 30 days before Election Day exceeded the margin of Biden’s victory. ”
This has already been debunked by Georgia’s own republican election officials. Those making the claim are deliberately misapplying the methodology that provided the imbalance.
All those reasons were already addressed or debunked. This is why there’s still no evidence of said claims. Remember, a lack of evidence is not evidence.
There is no proof that will convince you of anything. Your eyes and ears do not count when the brain is soft and mushy. The mush prevails while the truth doesn’t.
Daniel,
“Leave aside the lunatic conspiracy theories promoted by Sidney Powell and a few others.”
They weren’t simply promoted as conspiracy theories. They were claimed in lawsuits, which is why at least one judge referred Powell for ethics violations.
“The number of illegal mail-in votes in 2020 is and will remain unknown, but there is every reason to suspect it is high.”
No, there isn’t “every reason to suspect it is high.” Do you have an argument for why YOU believe it is high?
“Election officials and judges unconstitutionally changed the rules for voting notwithstanding legislation dictating otherwise.”
Can you cite a final court ruling (i.e., a state Supreme Court or SCOTUS or unappealed lower court ruling) that agrees with you?
“Illegal votes were counted when they should not have been.”
Some voter fraud occurs in most elections. We know this because there are cases of people being convicted of voter fraud in many states in many elections. The issue isn’t whether *some* “Illegal votes were counted when they should not have been,” but whether there were enough to change the results in any state.
“This has been shown in Georgia, where the number of people who voted in one county after moving permanently to another county more than 30 days before Election Day exceeded the margin of Biden’s victory.”
You mean it’s been *alleged* in Georgia. As far as I know, it’s being investigated by the Secretary of State’s office, but it has yet to be shown. If you evidence that the investigation is complete, please present it.
“The recent decision in Wisconsin shows that tens of thousands of drop-box votes should not have been counted, in excess of Biden’s margin of victory. ”
That ruling came a week ago and has already been appealed. So now we wait for the appeals court ruling.
You’re now 2 for 2 in assuming that things have been shown in a final way when they haven’t.
“There is nothing, on the other hand, that can be pointed to about the new laws that raises questions about the integrity of the upcoming 2022 election.”
Sure there is.
“They generally make it easier to vote compared to the pre-2020 norms”
Some do, and others make it harder: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-december-2021
Are you concerned about the latter?
All good points, Daniel! You present a clear, nuanced analysis. I believe that the current “big lie” is that sponsors of the so-called “voting rights” bills (Freedom to Vote Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act) have promoted the legislation as something essential to the integrity of the voting process when, in fact, it is not. All too often, members of Congress attach names to proposed bills that are misleading. To be clear, the legislation would substitute federal rules for matters that have long been governed by the states. Perhaps Congress should take a page from the federal securities laws which require mutual funds to have names that are not misleading.
234currency claims:
“The DEMS are losing in the Courts.”
You did not hear about it on Newsmax or Fox, but the Democrats just won a major Supreme Court decision by 8-1 against Trump’s claim of executive privilege to prevent the National Archives handing over 700 White House documents relating to 1/6/21. This is a HUGE loss for Trump- a decision which Turley emphatically endorsed because unlike Trumpists, he believes in the rule of law.
Are the dims really contesting the 2022 elections already? If so I guess it’s their bull that’s being gored.
Sometimes when I read your column I wonder how you made it through the rabbit hole to write it.
i looked up ‘Justice Holmes’ in the dictionary; I couldn’t find it. I looked up ‘partisan mouthpiece’, and it said Justice Holmes. Go figure.
Democrats are now saying that the rules used in 2008-2012 that elected Obama and the election rules used in states like CT, NY and DE are racist and effective as Jim Crow Laws???
Democrats say that the filibuster is racist after they used it 300 times in the last session in which they were the minority???? In fact they actually used it just a few weeks ago to stop a bill aimed at China…at the behest of the White House??? Democrats are shameless. We have video of Obama, Schumer and Boden all extolling the filibuster only a few years ago and now it is Jim Crow???
The Democrats push far left policies on crime, elect far left DEMOCRATS as DAs, support groups like BLM that call to defund the police and yet we have Psaki claiming Biden is strong on policing matters???? Tying in points 2 and three we had the DEMOCATS using the FILIBUSTER to stop a crime bill that was sponsored by Tim Scott, A BLACK SENATOR. They used the FILIBUSTER against a BLACK senator only two years ago. SHAMELESS.
The Democrats carp about gerrymandering as they gerrymander??? The Democrats screech about money in politics as they raise more money from PUBLIC UNIONS and spend more money than Republicans in every election???
We all know that there is hypocrisy in politics, but has it ever been as blatant as what the Dems are doing today? We actually had a (typical) CNN “reporter” asking rhetorically what Mitch McConnell would do if he had the power to kill the filibuster seemingly forgetting that Mitch had the power two years ago and he did NOT kill the filibuster.
The only thing that will be more laughable is that if the Republicans take back the senate in November we will have Chuck Schumer claiming the filibuster is a way to FIGHT RACISM.
You bring up a lot of important and valid points, but to the Borg (Democrats) what you say is meaningless. They have also declared Math as racist. What can anyone say after such a crazy statement is made?
The continually drumbeat about the lack of water at polling place is breathtaking. I am amazed how people can just repeat that knowing it is a lie.
After months of silence, Turley at long last directly addresses Trump’s Big Lie. He writes:
“After the 2020 election, some of us expressed skepticism over the claims of widespread fraud but waited to see the evidence presented in court. That evidence never materialized and, while I predicted an effort to challenge the electoral votes two days after the election, I wrote that calls to challenge the certification of the election were unfounded factually and legally.”
Turley does NOT buy Trump’s Big Lie that the election was stolen. Case closed.
Turley notes:
“In responding to Trump’s “Big Lie,” Democrats and many in the media are doing something remarkably similar by claiming these state laws are an effort to steal the coming elections – claims that might fuel anger and violence similar to that seen after the 2020 election.”
Turley acknowledges that Trump’s Big Lie fueled the anger and violence on 1/6. Unlike Trumpists, Turley will not pretend that Trump’s one word he spoke at the rally, “peacefully,” negates Trump’s angry claim that unless you people fight like hell you won’t have a country anymore. Turley condemned Trump’s speech as “reckless” and called for his censure by Congress. He even testified that he believed Trump’s conduct could be impeachable but that the Democrats had rushed through the process and failed to secure sufficient evidence of Trump’s intent.
Turley concludes:
“Lies can give license to those who are predisposed to violence on both sides, from antifa to the Proud Boys. We have enough lies going into 2024. What we need is leadership.”
Turley is attempting to make a moral equivalence between Trump’s long-running Big Lie and what he perceives as a “similar”effort being formulated by some Democrats. Be that as it may, two wrongs don’t make a right. Turley concedes that Trump is a liar; he only hopes that the Democrats don’t follow suit and instead become leaders.
Pace Professor TURLEY, but there is considerable evidence of election “irregularities” in 2020. The only true unknown is whether they were egregious enough to have changed the outcome in any state.
Mistressadams says:
“The only true unknown is whether they were egregious enough to have changed the outcome in any state.”
Turley is unequivocal:
“That evidence never materialized”
It’s over. You are lying.
I am beginning to genuinely feel a bit sorry for jeffsilberman at how invested he is at seeing any evidence to support his TDS. It is a singularly manic focus highlighted by his nearly daily exhortations demanding admissions from Prof Turley that “DJT did this”, “DJT did that”, “whataboutthis…?”, “Why can’t you admit it?”, etc. Why is it soooooooooo important that Prof Turley mirror your opinions? Go to the rest of the MSM for your validations. You’ll get plenty there. Like you, they cannot let go of DJT either.
Sirius,
I am simply AGREEING with Turley’s views about Trump and his Big Lie. I can appreciate that his opinions are very painful to Trumpists, but don’t blame me- I am merely repeating for your edification what TURLEY says- not I. I did not say that Trump is a “carnival snake charmer” though I wish I had. Turley said it. Don’t believe me? Read it here:
https://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/09/newsmax-flames-out-trump-debate-down-to-gingrich-and-santorum/
Nice link you got there.
What I noticed in that thoughtful piece is a small truth.
All of the persons in the report, all the participants of high and proper standing. All the posturing, all the pontificating. Of everybody involved in the story, including the author. Only ONE person has risen to office of the President of the United States
Trump is a consummate conman. Had you fooled.
Sirius, Jeff is just demanding Turley be more consistent in his criticisms. He’s right that Turley is not as “objective” as he claims.
He’s right that Turley is not as “objective” as he claims.
Stupid
Turley has demonstrated repeatedly his objectivity.
What you are complaining about is like complaining that Maya Angelou is rotten writer, a terrible writer. she has never turned out a single passable murder mystery.
While all that is true. It is a stupid out of context, irrelevant, factoid. It only addressees your personal desires. And your desires don’t count.
Just admit that Turley writes for himself. Not the desires of any other people. That you and others are too retarded to understand simple things, is on you, not Turley
Iowan2 says:
“Just admit that Turley writes for himself.”
What? He is a TEACHER. That’s his profession. He does not write just for himself; his is a calling to spread knowledge.
How can you be so obtuse?
“He’s a teacher” he has several income streams. He and only He defines self, Of course he writes for himself All writer do. His “calling” is not defined by a random troll spouting other persons talking points in the internet.
Its hard to find a person that is as stupid as you. demand others dance at your meaningless whims.
Now, let’s be civil. Them’s the house rules.
Iowan2,
“ He’s right that Turley is not as “objective” as he claims.
Stupid”
No, he really IS not as objective as he portrays himself to be. He’s not wrong on that.
Jeff, I don’t know if I could fully agree with your view on this one. After reading his column I get the sense that Turley spent far more time criticizing in detail the “falsehoods” democrats are supposedly pushing than he did of Trump.
He still states Trump’s big lie as “the big lie”. There’s a clear sense of treating Trump’s lying with kid gloves vs. the democrats “falsehoods”. Democrats do have a valid concern that republicans will indeed try to steal or at the very least rig the election more in their favor. The effects are already showing up in Texas where mail in ballots are being rejected at a record rate.
Democrats have ample reasons to be very skeptical about the coming elections. Republicans learned from the mistakes and outcomes of the last election enough to be able to tweak the laws so their desire to cheat will be easier to justify.
Turley mentions remedies such as the courts, but as we both know. Republicans have been stacking those courts with republican appointees for a few years now. Guaranteeing a more favorable outcome in court should their laws be challenged.
Republicans will suddenly claim elections are more secure, for them, than for democrats. Republicans have been engaging in a very subversive manner when it comes to deciding who gets to vote by enacting these laws that keep adding technicalities that are designed to systematically keep voters confused as to what is required and deliberately not keeping the state’s own systems in line with the new rules.
In Texas mail in voters are required to provide either a DL number or their last four digits of their SS No. that’s despite the fact that voter registration forms don’t ask for that information. To further compound the problem the forms used to apply for a mail-in ballot are devoid of instructions on the new requirements. The old form is the most widely available. That “mistake” is intentional.
Turley didn’t go back and criticize trump or republicans for that matter for deliberately lying AFTER it became evident their voter fraud claims were proven to be lies. Where was the criticism of the continuing promotion of falsehoods already shown in court to be…false? This why I see this column as being a tad…hypocritical and frankly a case of, too late to be critical of such claims by the democrats. It’s self serving in my opinion.
I agree with you 100%. He was trying his best to make a moral equivalence between Trump’s Big Lie and the putative Democratic “Big Lie.” He is being very disingenuous, and you and I see through it.
I did not argue the points you make because I wanted to focus on the fact that Turley utterly rejects what 99% of the lying Trumpists on this blog STILL believe- the election was stolen.
Turley is hoping that Democrats don’t rip a page out of the Trump playbook.
Jeff is spinning again. He is starting to recognize that the proof of lawlessness in the 2020 election exists and is growing. He is also starting to realize how crazy the Democrats new claims are and how they have to constantly be changed.
“I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.” __Friedrich Nietzsche
S. Meyer,
“ Jeff is spinning again. He is starting to recognize that the proof of lawlessness in the 2020 election exists and is growing.”
There you go again, making stuff up.
There is no proof of lawlessness. A lack of proof is not proof.
S. Meyer is not intelligent enough or literate enough to understand what he’s talking about nearly all the time. Sometimes he gets it right, but so does a broken clock.
So far Svelaz, you have never demonstrated me making anything up. However I have demonstrated you lying even when the documents are produced right in front of your silly face.
Comirnaty was approved. BioNTech was not approved. The FDA wrote that they are “legally different” and the components are not identical. Those papers were produced over and over again, but you have chosen to prove yourself a liar.
S. Meyer,
“ Comirnaty was approved. BioNTech was not approved. The FDA wrote that they are “legally different” and the components are not identical.
Clearly you are a duma$$. Comirnaty IS BioNTech’s vaccine. It’s the same vaccine that everyone knows as the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. Those two companies collaborated in creating Comirnaty which is the commercial name for what you know as the Pfizer vaccine.
I’m the one who showed you the FDA documents. It wasn’t you.
Here’s the actual document proving you wrong,
https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download
This is from THAT document itself,
“ The final formulated product will be manufactured, filled, labeled and packaged at Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Rijksweg 12, Puurs, Belgium and at Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC, 7000 Portage Road, Kalamazoo, Michigan.”
Pay close attention to this S. Meyer,
“ You may label your product with the proprietary name, COMIRNATY, and market it in 2.0 mL glass vials, in packages of 25 and 195 vials”
Svelaz, You are dumber than sin. Comirnaty is similar to the BioNTech vaccine produced by BiorNTech, but (as I have quoted before from the FDA site in December 2021) it is legally different and is not exactly the same. Comirnaty got FDA approval, BooNTech vaccine didn’t which is what this discussion is all about.
You can keep talking all you want but the BioNTech vaccine did not get full approval and is “legally” different from Comirnaty.
All the other BS you provide is filler and a definitive sign of your Stupidity.
As always, Meyer, your insults describe you much better than your opponent. Comirnaty is physically, biologically, chemically, immunologically identical to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. What’s in the vial is identical. They are *legally* distinct because Comirnaty is a brand name and there are laws that apply to brands that don’t apply otherwise. As the FDA notes, the vaccine they approved “has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty.” They are also legally distinct because the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine has an EUA for people ages 5 and up, whereas Comirnaty only has the FDA’s full approval for those 16 and up. These are legal differences, not biochemical differences.
But you be you: insulting, ignorant, arrogant.
Svelaz, It’s nice to hear that you disagree with what the FDA says. They say they are not legally the same, and they are not identical.
Stupidity is what you demonstrate daily when you can’t read a simple statement from the FDA. Try concentrating on what the FDA says by removing your head from your A$$.
You clearly need to work on your vocabulary. I already said “They are *legally* distinct,” and yet you feel the need to point out “They say they not legally the same,” as if you don’t know what “distinct” means. I agree with the FDA: they are not the same legally, and I explained the key legal differences.
“they are not identical.”
They are *physically* (biologically, chemically, immunologically) identical.
They are not *legally* identical.
You are the one demonstrating daily stupidity here Meyer.
Svelaz, I see you used an anonymous icon, and already I can hear a minimal increase in intelligence. In fact, you finally got over the hump and said, “They are not *legally* identical.” It is sort of a stupid statement but a vast improvement over your earlier ones. I won’t comment on the other traits you mentioned as those are big words, so we know you don’t know what they mean or the proper context to use them.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ Svelaz, It’s nice to hear that you disagree with what the FDA says. They say they are not legally the same, and they are not identical.”
No S. Meyer they are both one and the same. You’re now just being willfully ignorant because you cannot bring yourself to concede the simple fact that you were just flat out wrong. You can’t provide documentation backing up your claim and now you’re deflecting.
“You can’t provide documentation backing up your claim and now you’re deflecting.”
Svelaz, by now, you have received another reply that provides the address and the location of prior responses to you. That should be sufficient proof for anyone, but not you. You will not apologize. Instead, you will reappear later, saying the same wrong things.
SM
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ Svelaz, I see you used an anonymous icon, and already I can hear a minimal increase in intelligence.”
That wasn’t me dumba$$. I’ve always posted under “Svelaz”. The very fact that you cannot distinguish different anonymous posters is enough evidence to ascertain that you truly don’t know how to make distinctions.
I can tell it’s you S. Meyer when you post anonymously. Your syntax is unmistakable. You certainly deserve the ATS moniker more than anyone else.
“That wasn’t me dumba$$. I’ve always posted under “Svelaz”
My apologies. I thought you forgot to add your name. I didn’t expect ATS to pipe in and tell you that you were wrong.
“I can tell it’s you S. Meyer when you post anonymously. Your syntax is unmistakable.”
I hope you can because I try to make it clear when I am writing to you. I am using my initials, SM, right now, so everyone that reads this knows it’s me. I want those that are annoyed by all these meaningless comments to have the ability to see there is nothing worthwhile in this present discussion and trash the responses.
SM
S. Meyer,
“ Svelaz, You are dumber than sin. Comirnaty is similar to the BioNTech vaccine produced by BiorNTech, but (as I have quoted before from the FDA site in December 2021) it is legally different and is not exactly the same. Comirnaty got FDA approval, BooNTech vaccine didn’t which is what this discussion is all about.”
No, it’s NOT “similar to the BioNTech vaccine”. It’s the SAME thing. It’s not “legally” different. You’re too stupid to know the difference. You can quote a BS as much as you want, but you’re not showing me exactly what document you’re using to back up your claim. I provided you with the actual approval letter from the FDA and the link to it. You can’t provide the documentation backing up your claim because you are making stuff up.
“ You can keep talking all you want but the BioNTech vaccine did not get full approval and is “legally” different from Comirnaty.”
The actual approval letter says they have FULL approval to manufacture their vaccine AND THEY MAY LABEL IT WITH THE PROPRIETARY NAME….COMIRNATY.
You’re just now lying or are too stupid to figure it out.
Show me YOUR documentation backing up your claim. I showed you documentation proving me factually correct.
Hay Hay Hey, wait a minute Svelaz, are you claiming their so call mRNA Gene Therapy crap is no long Liability Protected from Civil Lawsuits as “Experimental”, but they are still Criminally Libel.
I find that interesting.
Please explain, tell us more.
“No, it’s NOT “similar to the BioNTech vaccine”. It’s the SAME thing.”
OK, Svelaz, have it your way. However, you should notify the FDA, so they change what their documents say based on the intelligence of a birdbrain.
“It’s not “legally” different.”
Wow! I must have gotten that wrong. I wonder how? Oh, I remember, the FDA said it.
“You can quote a BS as much as you want, but you’re not showing me exactly what document you’re using to back up your claim. ”
I’m using the same document that I have posted before, both in quotes and by providing an address. If you wish to call that FDA document BS, that is fine, but that is what they said. I will inform the FDA not to use words greater than 5 letters, so you have the ability to read them.
I previously explained where you misinterpreted a document you read. I don’t feel obligated to do it again. Everyone else that has read these responses has seen the number of times I have given you the address of more than one FDA document, and they also saw that I quoted directly from the document. You chose to act like a fool, and you have chosen to lie, so you have to live with this.
Time to change your alias again.
S. Meyer,
“ Wow! I must have gotten that wrong. I wonder how? Oh, I remember, the FDA said it.”
“ I’m using the same document that I have posted before, both in quotes and by providing an address.”
If you have posted it before you should have no trouble posting it again. All you keep saying is “the FDA said it”. Hearsay is not a valid argument.
“ I’m using the same document that I have posted before, both in quotes and by providing an address.”
Problem is you didn’t provide either. Just saying you did doesn’t substantiate your claim. I easily provided you with documentation proving my point. You didn’t.
“ I previously explained where you misinterpreted a document you read. I don’t feel obligated to do it again.”
Again, you provided no documentation at all. You still haven’t. You “don’t feel obligated” because you never provided them in the first place and you can’t find it. You’re just covering for your BS claim.
Svelaz writes: “Again, you provided no documentation at all. You still haven’t. You “don’t feel obligated” because you never provided them in the first place and you can’t find it. You’re just covering for your BS claim.”
Here are a couple of locations where I mentioned the address of the FDA report. This proves you don’t know what you are talking about.
In the first one, I copied your statement, which is what is being argued about and is completely wrong,
You said: “All the current vaccines have been granted full approval. ”
Below is one of the many FDA postings I made. I believe others have posted FDA sites as well
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/03/new-york-announces-that-scarce-covid-19-treatments-will-be-prioritized-for-non-white-patients/comment-page-1/#comment-2148321
In the second of the posts, I showed one of the reasons Pfizer might like this legal distinction.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/03/new-york-announces-that-scarce-covid-19-treatments-will-be-prioritized-for-non-white-patients/comment-page-3/#comment-2148317
I posted other things from the FDA with their addresses, and much of what I said was pure quotes from the FDA.
This proves you to be what everyone knows you to be. You were wrong again, and it isn’t just about Covid. You have been proven wrong repeatedly on a multiplicity of subjects where proof has been provided. You deny the truth and the proof provided even when it is on the same official papers you have posted.
Svelaz, I am not the troll Meyer, but you are mistaken when you say that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and Comirnaty are not legally different.
They are *physically* (biologically, chemically, immunologically) identical.
But they are not *legally* identical. Comirnaty is a trademarked brand name and so has some legal protection that the phrase Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine doesn’t have. More importantly, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine has an EUA for people ages 5 and up, whereas Comirnaty only has the FDA’s full approval for those 16 and up. These are legal differences
Meyer is a troll, but don’t let that get in the way of your own learning about the legal differences.
“Svelaz, I am not the troll Meyer, but you are mistaken when you say that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and Comirnaty are not legally different.”
Anonymous the Stupid, you got 50% right which approximates your critical thinking skills. It is not a passing grade but far better than Svelaz’s whose critical thinking skills are somewhere around 0%.
Svelaz: Is it possible that you and S. Meyer are both correct?? S. Meyer is not a troll and contributes greatly to this site. He is correct in that the two are “legally distinct,” which you also acknowledged. But I at least believe you are likely correct as well, in that the components/ingredients that make them different are insignificant. To wit, the ACTUAL language in the FDA sheet refers to them being “legally distinct” with “certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.” I didn’t see where either of you referenced that language, but I haven’t been following this thread, so I apologize if either of you did. To me, that’s like buying the local grocery chain’s version of Pepto-Bismol, where “active ingredients” are separated from “inactive ingredients” and there might be a slight change or percentage in either, to avoid patent infringement, etc. So. S. Meyer is correct, but I think your points are valid as well. In any event, can we just all move on and get back on topic? Thanks.
lin, I hope that you’re not confusing me with Svelaz, as S. Meyer did earlier. I’m the one calling him a troll, not Svelaz.
You may not be aware of it, but S. Meyer used to post under a different name and often posts anonymously, including above. He regularly lies about and insults those on the left when he responds to us. He is absolutely a troll when it comes to his interactions with those on the left.
As for whether or not Comirnaty is different from the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, perhaps you aren’t aware that there is more than one formulation of each. If you read the last paragraph of the 1/3/2022 letter of authorization, https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download, you will see that when they say “The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness,” they are not referring to differences between the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and Comirnaty. They are referring to differences between Tris and PBS buffer formulations: “The two formulations differ with respect to certain inactive
ingredients only …” The two Tris formulations are the same. The two PBS formulations are the same.
So no, Meyer is not correct. Not that he will admit it. He will respond with more insults, because he’s a troll when it comes to his interactions with liberals.
That should be: the last paragraph **on page 12** of the 1/3/2022 letter of authorization.
Good morning. Re: your comment that “they are not referring to differences between the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 and Comirnaty:” Please see my comment to S. Meyer @ 10:54 AM, I’ll stay out of it, thanks
(I meant to add that buffers are generally the “inactive ingredients” as I had already mentioned in my original comment to you.
“confusing me with Svelaz, as S. Meyer did earlier.” (this is in response to ATS)
Too bad. I thought Svelaz forgot to sign his name, so I gave him more credit than I should have.
“He regularly lies about and insults those on the left when he responds to us.”
Anonymous the Stupid, you got that name because it matched your personality. I am not the only one to call you that. In fact, others have come up with an abbreviation ATS, not me, and still, others use different names when dealing with you. Do you know why? Because you are an abusive person that thinks he creates plausible deniability by using the generic anonymous icon. You deceive and lie.
I faced that along with your abusive behavior until I realized that to respond to you, I needed to give you a name and separate you from others posting generically. Not only do you use the generic icon, but as pointed out, you use multiple icons and multiple names. I pointed out several names in the past.
One of those names was the green anonymous that had more reasonable discussions with Karen. When pointed out that anonymous disappeared. Another is Sammy. Under that icon, you used the name Edison and Molly G., both of which I posted HTTP proof for previously. There are and were others.
You can deny these things, but you are more transparent than you think. We know your modus operandi, deny, deny, and deny while you lie and deceive. Your motto: Always blame someone else for your Stupidity
You add that I erred but you didn’t say where. Is that a part of your typical deceptive practices?
(Posted under Lin instead of anonymous because as I demonstrated awhile back ATS (Anonymous the Stupid writes posts that are likely deleted due to the address or something similar.)
To make things clear, I use a generic anonymous mostly when posting to Anonymous the Stupid, Svelaz and Jeff, though I might use my unique name and icon if there is something of interest. I do this so people trying to save time can delete these ridiculous posts and save time by not bothering with them.
Yes, Anonymous the Stupid, I don’t like anonymous posting when used abusively like you do when you use your anonymity to blame others.
One should note that the left tends to insult the right with a broad brush obliquely. That is Jeff’s trademark. That is why he is insulted by so many in return.
Here is one example of an abusive anonymous reply. It is repulsive and should lead to a permanent ban.
“Remember Ashli Babbitt -January 6, 2021”
Anonymous replied:
“She earned that bullet.”
All of the recent deletions appear to be from Anonymous the Stupid, so it makes sense to believe this one was from him as well.
I won’t attribute such a statement even to Anonymous the Stupid though it is within his realm. It was deleted along with a dozen or so other posts by Anonymous the Stupid so that one has the information to make their own decisions.
Hi, Lin. Thank you for your gracious comment. I apologize for getting you embroiled in this longtime dispute with anonymous.
Both you and I thought Svelaz was responding because that is what we expected. Except it was anonymous that fooled us, causing more confusion and agitation. That is a problem with anonymous postings. There is enough confusion in this type of correspondence that one does not need to add an accelerant.
I explained where Svelaz has consistently denied validated proof when provided in other posts. He runs away from the discussion to later repeat his claims and deny previously provided proof. Enough of him because I think anyone reading his postings can see how wrongheaded he is.
Anonymous is a different story. For the most part, his posts are based on regurgitated superficial knowledge from left-wing sites, but sometimes he demonstrates a more profound understanding. When confronted, he can become nasty and use pretend friends (also anonymous) to support him, thinking numbers, not the truth, count. These pretend friends can even be from other names and icons he has created.
It was pleasant to see him trying to act nice to you, proving he knows how, but look at how he treats his host, Professor Turley. I will quote him for the posting was deleted not because he insulted Turley but because he may have been using a banned address. I will quote an earlier post of his, “It is a pattern that you, Jonathan Turley, regularly engage in yourself. You post a lot of false statements. When is the last time that you admitted you were wrong?” This is characteristic of him. When called on a comment he made and didn’t wish associated with his name, he will state someone else made it. However, if this is an ongoing problem, a rational person would protect himself from such claims by taking a name and an identifiable icon. He doesn’t want to do that because then he would have to be consistent in his comments.
On the other hand, I believe Anonymous was mainly correct in his analysis of the Covid vaccines and said nothing that disagreed with my argument with Svelaz. Comirnaty gained FDA approval, BioNTech was not approved, and legally the two are different.
I do not trust the FDA, and I think they have complicated some of their reports for the wrong reasons. Don’t think I am an anti-vax. I am not against it. I have had two Pfizer shots and a Pfizer booster, but I do not believe everyone needs the shots or should be forced to get them. Politics has invaded rational thought where Covid is involved.
“Anonymous … said nothing that disagreed with my argument with Svelaz.”
Actually, I very explicitly disagreed with the text in bold in the following claims you made to Svelaz: “The FDA wrote that they [Comirnaty and BioNTech] are “legally different” and the components are not identical,” “Comirnaty is similar to the BioNTech vaccine produced by BiorNTech, but (as I have quoted before from the FDA site in December 2021) it is legally different and is not exactly the same.” The text from you in bold is false, as I made clear in my exchange with lin.
“it is legally different and is *not exactly the same*.” The text from you in bold is false,”
The question is comparing Comirnaty to Covid-19 vaccines. It is not comparing the varieties of Covid-19 vaccines.
What is the difference between my paraphrase “not exactly the same” or “not identical”, and the quote from the FDA “The products are legally distinct with certain differences”? I originally copied the quote. The ones you provided are paraphrases of what the FDA said.
Let me put all the words together with quotes around the FDA’s direct quote. Tell me the difference.
not exactly the same
not identical
Compared to the FDA:
“certain differences”
Below is the December statement from the FDA:
—
“Is Comirnaty interchangeable with other COVID-19 vaccines?
The FDA-approved Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the two EUA authorized formulations of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for ages 12 years and older, when prepared according to their respective instructions for use, can be used interchangeably without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.”
“Tell me the difference.”
If you’d read my exchange with lin, you’d already know. You might read it now.
In this disagreement, you need to keep track of 4 products:
1) the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine that uses PBS buffer
2) Comirnaty that uses PBS buffer
3) the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine that uses Tris buffer
4) Comirnaty that uses Tris buffer
I already linked to and quoted from the FDA’s letter of authorization, which is more detailed than your Q&A: “the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine that uses PBS buffer and COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) that uses PBS buffer have the same formulation. Additionally, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine that uses Tris buffer and COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) that uses Tris buffer have the same formulation” (emphasis added).
1) and (2) are identical.
(3) and (4) are identical.
When the FDA says “The two formulations differ with respect to certain inactive ingredients only,” the “two formulations” they’re referring to are the PBS buffer formulation and the Tris buffer formulation. They’re saying that some inactive ingredients in the PBS buffer formulation (both 1 & 2) differ from some inactive ingredients in the Tris buffer formulation (both 3 & 4). They are NOT saying that the two formulations for Pfizer-BioNTech (1 & 3) differ from the two formulations for Comirnaty (2 & 4).
The “certain differences” in your quote are the differences between the PBS buffer formulation (both 1 & 2) and the Tris buffer formulation (both 3 & 4), NOT between the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and Comirnaty. The Q&A could be worded more clearly, but both the letter of authorization that I linked to and the NIH document that lin linked to are more detailed and make this clear.
“If you’d read my exchange”
That is not the question at hand. First we have to figure out if my paraphrases of the FDA document were correct or not. Yes is the answer. Do you agree or disagree?
My paraphrases:
“not exactly the same”
“not identical”
The FDA statement.
“certain differences”
Below is the December statement from the FDA:
—
“Is Comirnaty interchangeable with other COVID-19 vaccines?
The FDA-approved Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the two EUA authorized formulations of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for ages 12 years and older, when prepared according to their respective instructions for use, can be used interchangeably without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.”
I already answered.
Do you not understand the answer, which quotes from a more detailed FDA document?
You talk as if there are only 2 “products,” when there are 4. Get clear on which of the products have “certain differences.” It’s not the ones you said.
“I already answered.”
You did not. You changed the subject to a related subject. That is not a good habit to get into.
The question was whether or not my paraphrase was an accurate paraphrase of what the Dec. 2021 FDA statement said.
We are not talking about other documents or how many vaccines there are. We are only discussing what I told Svelaz that came from the FDA.
Here is the data under discussion. Was what I said accurately portraying the Dec 2021 report or not? It was accurate. Now you can respond.
My paraphrases:
“not exactly the same”
“not identical”
The FDA statement.
“certain differences”
Below is the December statement from the FDA:
—
“Is Comirnaty interchangeable with other COVID-19 vaccines?
The FDA-approved Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the two EUA authorized formulations of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for ages 12 years and older, when prepared according to their respective instructions for use, can be used interchangeably without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.”
The question is whether the sentences of yours that I quoted are true in full, which requires that you attend to the subjects of the sentences and not just the phrases you’re now quoting. Your sentences are not true in full, and I already demonstrated that, quoting from the Jan. 2022 letter from the FDA, and there’s further explanation in the Jan. 2022 NIH document that lin linked to, which was also quoted in our exchange.
Go ahead, list “The products” — the subject of the FDA’s sentence — and let’s see if you correctly understood the full list of products they’re referring to.
I don’t expect you to admit your mistake. You haven’t even admitted that your claim “Anonymous … said nothing that disagreed with my argument with Svelaz” was false.
“The question is whether the sentences of yours that I quoted are true in full,”
No, Anonymous. That is wrong. You pass over the steps of inquiry too quickly, which doesn’t allow you time to think. You believe you have the answer. Whether you have the answer or not is not what you should be looking at. You should be looking at how you got there and what you might have missed.
The words I quoted were accurate. I quoted the Dec. 2021 paper from the FDA and also paraphrased it. When you accuse me of being wrong, you say that I didn’t repeat what the FDA said accurately.
That is a problem, for it shows your desire to prove others wrong rather than a desire to find the truth. You have been known to correct a comma in someone’s sentence structure to prove yourself right.
At least in your mind, you have to take things step by step, the Mr. Miyagi approach.
To date, what you have proven isn’t much of anything. First, you have to accept and agree Svelaz was wrong. Only Comirnaty got the FDA approval. Then you have to admit that what I posted was the actual quote from an FDA document, and the paraphrases were also accurate.
Then and only then can you add that you have a paper that demonstrates a conflict between the two documents, which seems to make one document inaccurate. Only then can one move on and discuss the differences between the two papers and perhaps why and how that occurred. Finally, if you wish, you can get to the issue that concerned me, which had nothing to do with the chemical differences between BioNTech and Comirnaty. That is when you become a researcher.
Again:
You falsely claimed “Anonymous … said nothing that disagreed with my argument with Svelaz.”
I pointed out that your claim about me is false because I had very explicitly disagreed in part with your paraphrases of your FDA quote. The FDA said “The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.” The FDA’s claim was about “The products,” and they’re discussing more than 2 products, but you substituted only 2 items — “Comirnaty” and “the BioNTech vaccine” — and your substitution results in your paraphrases being partially false. You clearly do not understand which of the products do and don’t have “certain differences..”
“you have to admit … the paraphrases were also accurate.”
No, I don’t. Because your paraphrases are partly INaccurate.
I asked you to list “The products” that the FDA’s claim is about — the claim you chose to quote. But you weren’t willing to list them. Perhaps you’re unable to. As long as you remain unwilling to do this, you are not going to understand why your paraphrases are partially false.
You can’t even admit that you made a false claim about me.
“I had very explicitly disagreed in part with your paraphrases of your FDA quote”
That means you disagree with the FDA, but if you want to practice nitpicking, I am sure you can disagree with a lot. Was I missing a comma or a period after a sentence? You probably got me there. Was what I quoted an accurate quote? Were my paraphrases correct? I am sure for both, you agree. Was there a legal distinction? Yes, and you agree with that as well. One doesn’t get into the big league nitpicking.
Accept for a fact, anonymous, I understand your position and what you are saying. I didn’t render an opinion on that because the issue with Svelaz primarily had to do with approval. Comirnaty is approved. BioNTech is not whether or not they are identical. My interest surrounded the rationale over the approval process, and you could know that if you read my postings leading up to the discussion with Svelaz. I’m not faulting you for that. Instead, I am demonstrating how unnecessary this conversation is. The FDA quote I provided was to end the discussion with Svelaz showing him that approval for one wasn’t approval for the other.
“That means you disagree with the FDA”
No, stating that your paraphrases are partially false does not imply that I disagree with the FDA. The error is yours, not theirs.
“Was I missing a comma or a period after a sentence?”
This is part of your trolling. I already told you the source of your error: The FDA’s claim was about “The products,” and they’re discussing more than 2 products, but you substituted only 2 items — “Comirnaty” and “the BioNTech vaccine” — and your substitution results in your paraphrases being partially false.
You clearly have no interest in understanding the full set of products they’re talking about and why you paraphrase is partially false.
“Was what I quoted an accurate quote?”
Yes.
“Were my paraphrases correct?”
Only halfway. They’re halfway incorrect.
How many times do I have to tell you this? Your paraphrases are partially false, because you changed the subject of the sentence. You introduced errors into your claim that did not exist in the FDA’s own text.
“I am sure for both, you agree.”
Then you’re in denial, because I’ve told you several times now that your paraphrases were partially false.
Svelaz is correct that “It’s the same vaccine” and “Comirnaty … is the commercial name for what you know as the Pfizer vaccine.” Svelaz is talking about the vaccine as a physical (chemical, immunological, …) entity that is put into the vials. There’s more than one formulation for the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine and more than one formulation for Comirnaty, and the formulations for the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine are identical to the formulations for Comirnaty. They are legally distinct but they are not physically different. The “certain differences” that the FDA mentioned are the differences between the PBS and Tris buffer formulations for both, not differences between the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine and Comirnaty.
>>” “That means you disagree with the FDA”
> “No, stating that your paraphrases are partially false does not imply that I disagree with the FDA. The error is yours, not theirs.”
Then to be understood, you have to clarify yourself based on my paraphrase and what the FDA said in the quoted material.
My paraphrases:
“not exactly the same”
“not identical”
The FDA statement.
“certain differences”
>> “Was I missing a comma or a period after a sentence?
> “This is part of your trolling.”
I’m not the one that belongs to the comma police; you are.
“I already told you the source of your error: The FDA’s claim was about “The products,” and they’re discussing more than 2 products, but you substituted only 2 items — “Comirnaty” and “the BioNTech vaccine” — and your substitution results in your paraphrases being partially false.”
You have a problem making yourself clear because you are trying to prove something that doesn’t exist.
My quote from the FDA was accurate, as were my paraphrases. You are trying to change the meaning of the phrase from the FDA to a meaning that suits your desire to prove yourself right when you are wrong. The question being answered in the release was, “Is Comirnaty interchangeable with other COVID-19 vaccines?” That means the comparison was between Comirnaty and BioNTech. You are also nitpicking. You would be better off complaining about where I placed my commas.
This is S. Meyer. On occasion despite the form being completely filled out the blog doesn’t print my icon.Why is unknown. The above is from me.
“You clearly have no interest in understanding the full set of products they’re talking about and why you paraphrase is partially false.”
No!. I understand full well what they say in the release you provided. You are not the only one able to read, but you have a problem when you think as narrowly as you do. That means you need someone to guide you into areas you haven’t yet visualized.
>> “Were my paraphrases correct?”
> “Only halfway. They’re halfway incorrect.”
Though the FDA release isn’t a contract, think of it as a contract and that the only things one can decide upon are those things within the four corners of the release.
Once you deal with that, you can discuss problems with the release or issues with the other release that differs from the one under discussion.
“Svelaz is correct that “It’s the same vaccine” and “Comirnaty”
That is not the point. Because of your narrow vision, you continuously miss the point and are forced to resort to tortured language (prior comment above) in an attempt to prove your point which fails.
The issue with Svelaz had to do with approval. Comirnaty was approved, BioNTech was not approved. Other discussions questioned why, and the answers included liability concerns.
Svelaz’s mistake was that he didn’t carefully read anything. He did the same thing with the NY document that discussed antivirals and minorities.
I completely understand that BioNTech is the product that was later labeled Comirnaty. That is something known before the discussion took place. Your narrow vision seems not to permit you to understand another person’s focus and why the other person doesn’t accept either FDA report without scrutiny. I am looking more broadly. You are putting words into everyone’s mouth (including Svelaz’s) so that all the words meet your narrow vision. You keep repeating things that do not matter. Only the words written within the four corners of the “contract” matter.
Quoting you in italics:
to be understood, you have to clarify yourself based on my paraphrase and what the FDA said in the quoted material.
My paraphrases:
“not exactly the same”
“not identical”
The FDA statement.
“certain differences”
Your dishonesty is so transparent. You didn’t quote the FDA statement just now. You quoted a phrase from the FDA. A phrase is not a statement.
HERE is the FDA statement that we’re discussing. You’ve quoted it more than once:
“Is Comirnaty interchangeable with other COVID-19 vaccines?
“The FDA-approved Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the two EUA authorized formulations of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for ages 12 years and older, when prepared according to their respective instructions for use, can be used interchangeably without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.”
And HERE are your paraphrases for that statement:
“Comirnaty is similar to the BioNTech vaccine produced by BiorNTech, but (as I have quoted before from the FDA site in December 2021) it is legally different and is not exactly the same.”
“Svelaz, It’s nice to hear that you disagree with what the FDA says. They say they are not legally the same, and they are not identical.”
You say: “My quote from the FDA was accurate, as were my paraphrases.”
Your quote is accurate, but your paraphrases — the entire sentences that you presented in lieu of the entire quote from the FDA — are partially false. You want to pretend that your paraphrases were nothing but the italicized phrases above, but we both know that’s false. You and I are discussing sentences. You are trying to avoid including your full sentences for a reason: your full sentences are partly false.
The subjects of sentences matter, and however hard you try to avoid including the subjects of those sentences, I’m simply going to point out that you are dishonestly cutting off a key part of your paraphrases in order to avoid admitting your mistakes. What a snowflake you are.
“You are trying to change the meaning of the phrase from the FDA to a meaning that suits your desire to prove yourself right when you are wrong.”
BS. I’m not changing the meaning of any phrases. I’m pointing out that the SENTENCES — both the FDA’s and yours — have subjects, and you changed the subject of the relevant FDA sentence from “The products” to “Comirnaty” and “the BioNTech vaccine,” and your substitution affects the meaning of *your* sentences, and therefore your sentences paraphrasing the FDA are partially false, because the Comirnaty formulations and the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine formulations ARE identical.
“The question being answered in the release was, “Is Comirnaty interchangeable with other COVID-19 vaccines?””
Yes. Do you see the plural “vaccineS” in that question? They’re talking about the multiple formulations there, and they made that explicit in the body of the response: “the two EUA authorized formulations of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.”
There are “certain differences” between those two formulations. One uses PBS buffer and the other uses Tris buffer. “The products” the FDA refers to includes these different formulations.
“That means the comparison was between Comirnaty and BioNTech.”
No, it means what the FDA itself said, NOT what you just said. Once again, you are paraphrasing and introducing an error in your paraphrase that wasn’t in the FDA’s own statement. The FDA is extremely explicit that there’s more than one formulation, and that they’re comparing Comirnaty with vaccineS (plural). You’re attempting to obscure your mistake. Instead you should like an adult and simply accept that you made a mistake because you weren’t paying attention to the different formulations, so you didn’t understand that the “certain differences” were between the 2 formulations (PBS buffer and Tris buffer) NOT between Comirnaty and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
“Though the FDA release isn’t a contract, think of it as a contract”
In that contract, how many products is the FDA referring to when it says “The products”?
In that contract, how many formulations do they explicitly refer to for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine?
You refused to answer earlier. I think you don’t want to answer because you’ll either be wrong or you’ll be forced to admit that they’re talking about more than 1 formulation and more than 2 products.
“Your dishonesty is so transparent.”
I am being perfectly honest and transparent. You, like most leftists, have difficulty if someone holds an opinion that differs from yours. Such an opinion should not be permitted to exist. The left’s typical answer is to Cancel it, but Turley’s blog is different. He encourages differences of opinion.
We discussed the FDA paper that Svelaz claimed I had never provided an address for. Svelaz provided documents without quoting what he referred to. The document I responded to didn’t demonstrate approval of BioNTech. That was the issue. You have unbelievably decided to discuss a side issue.
Svelaz frequently misreads documents like he did the NYS document on minorities and the anti-virals. It is not my obligation to provide an encyclopedic answer to a side issue that was used only to demonstrate that the approval to Comirnaty was not an approval for BioNTech.
To date, I am not sure of anything. The government will not even force the release of information people have a right to know. I think that information will be released when we are all dead in 75 years.
You are playing your game of puerile parsing and calling me dishonest while you do so when in my discussions with you, I have been as honest and transparent as I could in a reasonably sized response.
Stop with the name-calling. Stop parsing every statement to find a hook that you create gaming words. You have had plenty of time to state your case. That you are failing is not helped by that approach. You want to forget that my discussion with Svelaz had to do with approval, not the tangential.
“The subjects of sentences matter, and however hard you try to avoid including the subjects of those sentences, I’m simply going to point out that you are dishonestly cutting off a key part of your paraphrases in order to avoid admitting your mistakes. What a snowflake you are.”
That is not true. Firstly I provided the full quote. I separated the FDA’s statement into two natural parts, legal and differences, to make things as clear as I could. You are free to copy the entire paragraph or response and show where what you are saying is pertinent. You haven’t yet done that.
Here are the operative paraphrases and quoted words from the FDA
My paraphrases:
“not exactly the same”
“not identical”
The FDA statement.
“certain differences”
Most people reading this will look at what you are saying and believe you are making a case over nothing just to make a case because you are annoyed at the way our disagreements have left you carrying the short end of the stick.
The following ideas to pop from your keyboard are almost unhinged with many words to disguise that you have no case. It goes like this, and I will quote you verbatim “the entire sentences that you presented in lieu of the entire quote from the FDA — are partially false” Then you divine why I used those words for my paraphrase when it is patently obvious, they were accurate paraphrases. Additionally, the entire document was available. I quoted the Q&A either in part or in full to Svelaz as well. Nothing changes the meaning of what I paraphrased or how I paraphrased it. Following that, you started lecturing on sentence structure. At least it wasn’t on commas. You end with calling me a snowflake. That is your real argument. Your feelings are hurt, and you want to transfer your emotions to another.
I will have to shorten this reply because it is too time-consuming to respond to non-existent complaints.
“Is Comirnaty interchangeable with other COVID-19 vaccines?”
That means they are comparing Comirnaty to other Covid Vaccines. That is why they raised the question in the first place. The response: Comirnaty and the other vaccines are legally different, and there are “certain differences.” You can interpret that statement any way you wish, but my interpretation makes the most sense. Yours? Not so much. You had no reason to call another dishonest.
I’m not going to play your quiz games because I am not sure how many more possible variations there are that aren’t listed. If they changed the manufacturing process, that would technically change the vaccine. When dealing with chemicals, the containers are frequently assigned different numbers and lot numbers because chemicals in different lots might demonstrate slight differences. That is especially seen in laboratory testing reagents. I don’t want to get into the science behind the creation of biologics because that one sentence seems to be too difficult for you to incorporate into a reasonable discussion.
Understand they had to change the formulation of BioNTech, so they didn’t have the temperature problems. I think most people know that. That is important. What you are providing is not.
“Stop with the name-calling.”
You have a lot of gall demanding that when you post more insults than anyone else here. Here are some of your insults said to or about several people on just this one page:
“Your words betray an ignorance undiscovered by yourself. … You have a lazy mind.”
“ATS is playing a dirty game.”
“Anonymous the Stupid is getting ready to sue the Turley blog. Let’s all get ready to laugh. Get that dog sh1t off my back lawn.”
“You are a fool … you are collecting dog Sh1t and packaging it.”
“You have nothing to say because you admittedly know nothing and never deal with facts or even the truth.”
“There is no proof that will convince you of anything. Your eyes and ears do not count when the brain is soft and mushy. The mush prevails while the truth doesn’t.”
“I have demonstrated you lying even when the documents are produced right in front of your silly face. … you have chosen to prove yourself a liar.”
“You are dumber than sin.”
“Stupidity is what you demonstrate daily … [Try] removing your head from your A$$.”
“the intelligence of a birdbrain.”
“You chose to act like a fool, and you have chosen to lie”
“Anonymous the Stupid, you got 50% right which approximates your critical thinking skills. It is not a passing grade but far better than Svelaz’s whose critical thinking skills are somewhere around 0%.”
“you are an abusive person … You deceive and lie.”
“his posts are based on regurgitated superficial knowledge”
“You are a fascist of the Stalinist or Mao type even if you don’t choose to recognize it.”
“to the Borg (Democrats) what you say is meaningless”
“you have a problem when you think as narrowly as you do. That means you need someone to guide you into areas you haven’t yet visualized.”
If you object to insults, the first thing you should work on is your own tendency to insult others. In the meantime, you only demonstrate that you dish it out with abandon but object when someone addresses you with a small fraction of what you dish out.
Anonymous, we had a real-time discussion that started with Svelaz stating that BioNTech was approved just like Comirnaty. That idea is wrong, and the two are considered legally different no matter what else.
Instead of using intellect and helpful facts to discuss the situation, you chose a non-intellectual approach. I suggested you would be better off leaving some of your bad habits at home and use whatever intellect you have here. In that vein, I said:
“Stop with the name-calling. Stop parsing every statement to find a hook that you create gaming words. You have had plenty of time to state your case. That you are failing is not helped by that approach.
It would be best if you were thanking me for the advice, for that is why you fail on this blog so often.
“I am being perfectly honest and transparent.”
Transparent, yes, as I already said. But you’re only being honest part of the time, as I’ve already provided evidence for.
“You, like most leftists, have difficulty if someone holds an opinion that differs from yours. Such an opinion should not be permitted to exist.”
What bunk. Our disagreement is primarily about T/F factual issues, not about your opinions. Apparently you have difficulty distinguishing between facts and opinions.
It’s a fact that you falsely claimed “Anonymous … said nothing that disagreed with my argument with Svelaz.”
It’s a fact that when you paraphrased the FDA’s statement “The products are legally distinct with certain differences,” you substituted “Comirnaty” and “the BioNTech vaccine” for “The products,” resulting in a partially false claim on your part, as the products that have certain differences are the PBS buffer and Tris buffer formulations, NOT Comirnaty versus the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.
It’s a fact that when I said “The question is whether the sentences of yours that I quoted are true in full,” you responded “No, Anonymous. That is wrong.” All along, I have been discussing whether your sentences are true in full, and you are trying to avoid it.
It’s a fact that you refused to answer “how many formulations do they explicitly refer to for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine?,” calling it a “quiz game,” even after I pointed out to you that the FDA explicitly refers to “the two EUA authorized formulations of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.”
Whether it’s a side-issue — as you claim — is a matter of opinion, and we disagree about that. More importantly, I only responded to you about it because you falsely claimed to lin that “Anonymous … said nothing that disagreed with my argument with Svelaz.” You still haven’t been able to admit that that claim of yours about me is false. You could have just said “I was wrong about that,” and we never would have had this exchange. But instead you doubled-down on your mistake.
“Here are the operative paraphrases and quoted words from the FDA”
The subjects of the sentences are ALSO operative. This has already been addressed multiple times.
“it is too time-consuming to respond to non-existent complaints”
That’s quite a self-own that you’re imagining complaints that don’t exist. Meanwhile, you’re failing to deal with your actual *factual* mistakes.
Face it, Anonymous, you lost the argument, so you will continue to grab at specks, magnify them and show a portion of that magnified speck to prove yourself right. You might as well substitute a comma for the speck because what you promote is nonsense and not worth reading or discussing.
The quotes, paraphrases and actual FDA reports are there for everyone to see. You can’t take it that your word games have become the issue and that people recognize those word games and word parsing as your attempt to prove yourself an intellect because even you don’t believe that is true.
Thanks for demonstrating that you cannot take your own advice.
Anonymous, I don’t care about harsh words. I was advising you that you need to demonstrate intellect along with your insults. Unfortunately, you double down on abuses and word gaming, leaving your mind totally out of the discussion.
You need to take a course in getting along, so you don’t need to remain anonymous. You lost badly. Get over it.
Good morning, I finally had time to review the original DIFFERENCES between Comirnaty and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. While the active ingredients are similar, I am copying, verbatim, information from NIH: “COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the authorized formulations of the vaccine include the following ingredients: *mRNA and lipids (4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6, 1-diy)bis(2-hexldecanoate), 2 [(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-diteetradecylacetamide, 1,2,-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, and cholesterol).
“Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines for individuals 12 years of age and older contain 1 of the following sets of ADDITIONAL INGREDIENTS (emphasis mine); ASK THE VACCINATION PROVIDER WHICH VERSION IS BEING ADMINISTERED (emphasis mine)…:potassium chloride, monobasic potassium phosphate, sodium chloride, dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and sucrose OR *tromethamine, tromethamine hydrochloride, and sucrose….
“COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) contains 1 of the following sets of ADDITIONAL INGREDIENTS (emphasis mine); ASK THE VACCINATION PROVIDER WHICH VERSION IS BEING ADMINISTERED (emphasis mine)…potassium chloride, monobasic potassium phosphate, sodium chloride, dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and sucrose OR tromethamine, tromethamine hydrochloride, and sucrose.” Source: nih.gov/dailymed/fdaDrugXsi.cfm?908ecbe7-2f1b….
lin, it’s odd for you to respond and then say “I’ll stay out of it.” You chose to respond, and I will reply to what you wrote.
Yes, you copied them verbatim, and what you copied confirms what I said!
Look carefully at what you copied:
“Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines … contain 1 of the following sets of ADDITIONAL INGREDIENTS:
“[1] potassium chloride, monobasic potassium phosphate, sodium chloride, dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and sucrose OR
“[2] *tromethamine, tromethamine hydrochloride, and sucrose”
“COMIRNATY … contains 1 of the following sets of ADDITIONAL INGREDIENTS:
“[1]potassium chloride, monobasic potassium phosphate, sodium chloride, dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and sucrose OR
“[2] tromethamine, tromethamine hydrochloride, and sucrose.”
I inserted the bracketed [1] and [2] and paragraph breaks to make it easier to compare.
There are two formulations of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: one is PBS buffer (Phosphate-Buffered Saline) — this is the additional ingredients listed [1], and the other is Tris buffer (Tromethamine) — this is the additional ingredients listed in [2]. There are also two formulations of Comirnaty: one is PBS buffer (Phosphate-Buffered Saline) — this is the additional ingredients listed [1], and the other is Tris buffer (Tromethamine) — this is the additional ingredients listed in [2]
Can you see that the items listed for [1] are IDENTICAL for both the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and COMIRNATY PBS buffer formulation?Can you see that the items listed for [2] are IDENTICAL for both the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and COMIRNATY Tris buffer formulation?
As I said, there are two formulations: Tris buffer and PBS buffer. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and COMIRNATY have a Tris buffer formulation, and those two versions are IDENTICAL. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and COMIRNATY have a PBS buffer formulation, and those two versions are IDENTICAL. When the FDA says “The two formulations differ with respect to certain inactive ingredients only,” the “two formulations” they’re referring to are the Tris and PBS buffers, NOT Pfizer-BioNTech versus Comirnaty, as the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine comes in both buffers, and the same for Comirnaty.
FWIW, your link it broken. Looks like you didn’t copy the full URL. But I was able to find it online.
Also, as I predicted: Meyer is not correct. Not that he will admit it. He will respond with more insults, because he’s a troll when it comes to his interactions with liberals.
(One: you labeled my copied paras 2 and 3 as 1 and 2, and you left out-and did not address -para 1. You also left out the “why,”–if they are identical, the caveat of having to ask your provider ‘which VERSION” you are receiving (emphasis mine)??? I would suggest that your para 2 (which is para 3 in the document part I copied) represents the FINAL synergistic analysis of ingredients FOLLOWING THE EVENTUAL COLLABORATION in April and FINAL VERSION of COMIRNATY.- which would eventually end the need for asking which version you are getting? I would suggest that pharmacies and vaccine providers had some leftovers as well as newer collaborated versions????
Two: I already suggested in my original comment that the difference was likely in “inactive ingredients” such as buffers,, . please go back and read it. THree: my question is for ME, having nothing to do with S. Meyer and you. thanks
In the alternative, my paras 2 and 3 (your paras 1 and 2) suggest several additional ingredients. The original Pfizer-BioNTech may have included, for example only, additional ingredients 1,2 and 4, whereas the original Comirnaty version may have included, for example only, additional ingredients 1,2 and 3, but not 4??? hypothetical example only? THE BOTTOM LINE: I still believe you were both correct in your own ways. That’s all I’m saying!
“Also, as I predicted: Meyer is not correct. Not that he will admit it. He will respond with more insults”
No Anonymous the Stupid, I am responding with the truth to what is a mistruth.. As I just recently reposted, the question was whether the vaccines were all completely approved or not. Svelaz said they all had FDA approval, and I said they did not. Only Comirnaty has gotten full approval. Svelaz confused licensing permission and other things granted to Pfizer as such approval, and I pointed that out to him earlier. He couldn’t handle being wrong, so he became insulting and lied (or extremely ignorant).
I added that they were legally distinct because Svelaz wasn’t reading the complete FDA document. He is a headline reader. The FDA has used tortuous language in some of their releases, making things confusing, possibly intentionally. This distinct legal claim likely has to do with the emergency approval of Pfizer, as under the EUA, there are certain legal protections.
It is difficult to lie when many of my postings actually quoted the FDA’s words. Whether I could have missed a comma, misspelled a word, or made an error is unknown without review (that is your typical way of calling another wrong), but I don’t think so. The quotes speak for themselves. The Links confirm what I said. There should have been no doubt about what I said, especially with all the links to the FDA that have been provided.
Others opined on the subject because many of us believe the left and the CDC have misused the horrible things surrounding Covid along with the FDA. I mentioned some of them before. I don’t hold Svelaz responsible for his misreading the data. I hold him accountable for his silly behavior and refusal to read the quotes extracted from the FDA where I included the link.
“because he’s a troll when it comes to his interactions with liberals.”
That is another mistruth. One’s politics doesn’t enter into my expression of what I believe. Yours does. I deal with fact, and you deal with feelings. In fact, you insult Turley daily, and though he is a confessed Democrat and Liberal I defend him even if I disagree with his politics.
You are a fascist of the Stalinist or Mao type even if you don’t choose to recognize it. Turley stands for civil liberties, but that gets in the way of your desires, so you impugn his integrity, lie and deceive. Most of the time, your statements are shallow. You are obviously are regurgitating leftist talking points provided in much of the media. You actually think on your own on rare occasions, but you can’t handle it when someone can provide better information.
lin,
“In the alternative, my paras 2 and 3 (your paras 1 and 2) suggest several additional ingredients. The original Pfizer-BioNTech may have included, for example only, additional ingredients 1,2 and 4, whereas the original Comirnaty version may have included, for example only, additional ingredients 1,2 and 3, but not 4??? hypothetical example only?”
Your hypothetical is never the case.
If you refer to the original NIH document, you’ll see that it says they “contain 1 of the following sets of additional ingredients,” and then they provide two bulleted lists for the Pfizer vaccine and two bulleted lists for Comirnaty. The first bulleted list for both is the PBS buffer formulation, and that formulation must contain all 4 ingredients. The second bulleted list for both is the Tris buffer formulation, and that formulation must contain all 3 ingredients. They’re grouped into two bulleted lists for a reason: all 4 ingredients in the first bullet have to be included for that formulation to be buffered correctly, and all 3 ingredients in the second bullet have to be included for the 2 buffer to work correctly. Your hypothetical, where “The original Pfizer-BioNTech may have included, for example only, additional ingredients 1,2 and 4, whereas the original Comirnaty version may have included, for example only, additional ingredients 1,2 and 3, but not 4” never occurs. If they’d meant what you say in your hypothetical, then they’d have broken it up into more bullets. The PBS formulation requires all 4 ingredients; it wouldn’t work properly without all 4.
“THE BOTTOM LINE: I still believe you were both correct in your own ways. That’s all I’m saying!”
And you can have that opinion, but it’s still a fact that the FDA has explicitly said “the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine that uses PBS buffer and COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) that uses PBS buffer have the same formulation. Additionally, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine that uses Tris buffer and COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) that uses Tris buffer have the same formulation” (emphasis added). There are differences in the inactive ingredients in the 2 buffers, but that’s not a difference between the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and Comirnaty, as each is produced in both buffer formulations. Meyer is wrong when he claims that “The FDA wrote that … the components [of Comirnaty and BioNTech] are not identical.” The FDA didn’t say that. It said that there are different formulations with different inactive ingredients, but the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that uses Tris buffer is IDENTICAL to the Comirnaty formulation that uses Tris buffer, and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that uses PBS buffer is IDENTICAL to the Comirnaty formulation that uses PBS buffer.
lin,
You’re welcome.
“your statement … leaves open what I said in my follow-up hypothesis”
I addressed your hypothetical in a different response, which I think you’ve now read. That hypothetical never occurs. I think it’s clearer in the FDA approval letter I linked to earlier.
“Many people (not me) can have allergic or other untoward reactions to inactive ingredients”
Perhaps that’s one of the reasons that there are 2 buffer formulations, and that’s why they suggest that the person getting the vaccine ask which version they’re getting. (It’s not the only reason for the 2 buffer formulations, as they note elsewhere that the second formulation is more stable and doesn’t have to be kept as cold, which is important in developing countries.) But that’s a difference in the 2 formulations of Comirnaty, and a difference in the 2 formulations of the Pfizer vaccine, not a difference between Comirnaty and the Pfizer vaccine.
Fine by me to end the exchange. Have a good day!
Sorry for the duplicate copy. The first didn’t show up right away and I thought it might be a problem with the link.
lin,
“One: you labeled my copied paras 2 and 3 as 1 and 2”
Actually, I labelled the two buffer formulations, not your paragraphs 2 and 3, which is why [1] appears twice and [2] appears twice. As I noted, I inserted multiple paragraph breaks.
“you left out-and did not address -para 1.”
Right, I did not address your paragraph 1 because it’s not relevant to the discussion of whether there are differences between the two formulations for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine versus the two formulations for Comirnaty. The ingredients listed in your 1st paragraph — the active ingredients — are the same for ALL versions. The NIH said “COMIRNATY … and the authorized formulations of the vaccine include the following ingredients,” where “the authorized formulations of the vaccine” refers to the formulations of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine authorized under the EUAs.
“You also left out the “why,”–if they are identical, the caveat of having to ask your provider ‘which VERSION” you are receiving (emphasis mine)???”
If you reread, you’ll see that it says “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines …. contain 1 of the following sets of additional ingredients; ask the vaccination provider which version is being administered,” and then they list the 2 formulations: the PBS buffer and the Tris buffer. By “which version,” they are referring to the 2 formulations — the 2 different buffers — of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines. I’m not sure why they suggest that the person being vaccinated ask which formulation (version) is being used, probably just part of making sure that patients are giving informed consent.
Then they say “COMIRNATY … contains 1 of the following sets of additional ingredients; ask the vaccination provider which version is being administered,” and they list the 2 formulations: the PBS buffer and the Tris buffer. By “which version,” they are again referring to the 2 formulations of the Cormirnaty vaccines, not comparing Comirnaty with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
“which would eventually end the need for asking which version you are getting? I would suggest that pharmacies and vaccine providers had some leftovers as well as newer collaborated versions????”
As I noted elsewhere, one of the *legal* differences between the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (with EUAs) and Comirnaty (with full FDA approval) is that the former can be administered to younger children than the latter. It may be that Pfizer will eventually stop making either the Tris buffer formulation or the PBS buffer formulation for both the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and Comirnaty; I don’t know.
“I already suggested in my original comment that the difference was likely in “inactive ingredients” such as buffers,, . please go back and read it.”
I don’t need to reread it. I understood it the first time. But as I already pointed out, that is NOT a difference between the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and Comirnaty. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine comes in two formulations. Comirnaty comes in the same two formulations. If you read the FDA document that I linked to earlier, they’re even more explicit: “the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine that uses PBS buffer and COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) that uses PBS buffer have the same formulation. Additionally, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine that uses Tris buffer and COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) that uses Tris buffer have the same formulation.” (emphasis added). There are differences in the inactive ingredients in the 2 buffers, but that’s not a difference between the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and Comirnaty, as each is produced in both buffer formulations.
“THree: my question is for ME, having nothing to do with S. Meyer and you. thanks”
Thanks for clarifying. A wise choice on your end. As I hope you can see from my exchange with you, I have no problem having a civil, fact-based, good-faith discussion with you. I don’t mind answering your questions or clearing up misunderstandings. I hope that you’ll eventually see that the differences are between the two buffer formulations (PBS and Tris), not between the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and Comirnaty.
Thanks for detailed response. I accept and agree with your statement about exclusion of my para 1 regarding active ingredients. However, your statement that you “do not know why one should seek advice as to what version….” leaves open what I said in my follow-up hypothesis: that the original versions of COMIRNATY and Bio-NYTech may have contained differing versions or quantities of buffer ingredients (inactive ingredients), which were later agreed upon and ended up as the FINAL collaborated version of COMIRNATY,, except that both existing versions could be used interchangeably because the active ingredients are the same??? Many people (not me) can have allergic or other untoward reactions to inactive ingredients, the possibility of which speaks to the original comments by S. Meyer.
I am no pharmacist, so I defer to you, if you are. I also hate to use up space on this particular blog (about the “other big lie,” ) as my exchange with you is not even tangentially related, but this is where your previous exchanges occurred, so I had no choice…(apologies to site manager).
(I add that I believe the agreed BLA of COMIRNATY probably confused and complicated the whole discussion of differences, because prior to the collaboration, I think Pfizer referred to its original formula under some other reference, like “Project XXXXX?”
Anonymous: just now seeing your 1:44 post, I cannot comment because I don’t know the idiosyncratic vernacular, reasoning, or application… So we can end this here before we both get thrown off for unrelated prolix, ha ha
(I meant waxing prolix)
lin,
You’re welcome.
“your statement … leaves open what I said in my follow-up hypothesis”
I addressed your hypothetical in a different response, which I think you’ve now read. That hypothetical never occurs. I think it’s clearer in the FDA approval letter I linked to earlier. Here’s that link again: https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download
“Many people (not me) can have allergic or other untoward reactions to inactive ingredients”
Perhaps that’s one of the reasons that there are 2 buffer formulations, and that’s why they suggest that the person getting the vaccine ask which version they’re getting. (It’s not the only reason for the 2 buffer formulations, as they note elsewhere that the second formulation is more stable and doesn’t have to be kept as cold, which is important in developing countries.) But that’s a difference in the 2 formulations of Comirnaty, and a difference in the 2 formulations of the Pfizer vaccine, not a difference between Comirnaty and the Pfizer vaccine.
Fine by me to end the exchange. Have a good day.
And we’re told to only eat foods we can pronounce, but we go ahead and inject things we can’t into our bodies. 😉
Good morning. please see my comment to S. Meyer at 10:54 AM, infra. thanks
Thanks for the heads up. I responded there. I hope you can now see that you confirmed what I said earlier.
I don’t view what Trump and his allies claimed about election fraud in 2020 as equivalent to what the Democrats are doing now. In fact, the Democrats DID fiddle around in blue swing states. Here in Pennsylvania, the governor used his covid emergency powers to encourage mail-in voting, ballot harvesting, and multiple ballots being sent to people’s homes (my husband and I each received 2 mail-in ballots). And nationally, the Biden laptop scandal was suppressed nearly everywhere. Much of what the Democrats did throughout the 2020 election was outlined in a Feb. 2021 Time Magazine article on how they “fortified” the election. My favorite was the plan for the day after the election to contact organized protest groups in 200 cities and set them loose on the streets to protest the election results in case of a Trump win.
This time is different. Many of the governors will no longer have those emergency powers, although that may not be the case in deep blue states where covid restrictions, although no longer necessary, may be kept in force. Polls are showing that Democrats are in deep trouble, particularly among independents. But, hey, it can’t hurt and might help to encourage people to lose even more faith in the electoral system to help forestall a mid-term tsunami.
In 2020 Trump was right to warn about election fraud, even though nothing came of it in the courts, because 1) the courts don’t want to involve themselves in politics, and 2) after 4 years of hating on Trump, any rational observer should have assumed that all that hate would finally come to focus on the 2020 election and the Democrats’ Big Lie that Trump would manage to steal it.
Let’s hope voters yawn at this latest Big Lie by the Democrats, especially now that this would be the third election in a row in which the Dems have cried “Wolf.” In any case, right now, I’m more worried about the rush to war (on the part of both parties) with Russia and the opportunity it’s presenting for a false flag operation in Ukraine.
Mary Ann, great comment! Especially coming after another idiotic comment by the obsessed Jeff Silberman.
Excellent comment. One quibble: The date of Time’s article was March 4, 2021.
“especially now that this would be the third election in a row in which the Dems have cried “Wolf.””
We’d best be watchful of any fraud at all, especially in PA. Perhaps I am too cynical but I think election fraud has little to do with the parties in question, per se.
I believe in voter id with photo and vote at the polls. Get off your arse if you are an American. I don’t like racial or Dem vs Repub Gerry mandating.
‘Lock them up!’ Is never going to happen – if Ghislaine can slime her way out of a verdict Nancy, Chuck et. al. needn’t break a sweat. *Voting them out* is the better solution, and they know it; what we are witnessing is pure desperation. The dems know they will only win if they change their policy or change the rules of the game. They are far more comfortable with the latter, such is their scorn for we the people telling them what we’d like them to do. Nobody needs to destroy the Democratic party – that has already happened. Vote against them, and stand up for the preservation of your already existing rights, because they ARE actively trying to revoke them, and for all time.
I am so tired of that bitter, mean old man.
Biden will damage the country even more before he finally shuffles away.
All for partisan gain.
THE DEMS/BIDEN and friends such as Mark Elias are not happy that the states are cleaning up voter rolls, requiring an ID, not allowing cheating via ballot harvesting and stuffing the ballot box. They can’t win, right now, for their Radical Left Wing Social Justice Corrupt, new Green Deal, Elites, LOCKDOWN, COVID and etc policies are failing and VOTERS are angry and are going to throw the BUMS/DEMS out. THE MSM know know body is listening to them, their ratings are way down CNN and others viewership is way down, nobody trusts them or will listen to them. Social Media is finding competition from start ups such as RUMBLE, GETTR and etc. The DEMS are losing in the Courts. Bidden track record in the Supreme Court is terrible. DEMS are in for a major defeat and perhaps after the defeat they will clean up their party and reject the WOKE, RADICAL SOCIAL JUSTICE BS.
Forgot Another massive item for when the GOP wins in a landslide….jail EVERYONE involved in the Russian Hoax
from Hillary, Obama, Schiff, Nadler, and most importantly the insiders in the DOJ/FBI/etc
Guyventner writes:
“jail EVERYONE…”
And you think Turley agrees with your call to round everyone up and throw them in jail? Haven’t you read time and time again where Turley deplores our “age of rage”?
Not everyone agrees all the time … some of those named DO belong in the clink.
Mistressadams,
I take it that Trump does not belong in the clink and that you will reject ANY guilty verdict by a jury for anything which Trump *may be* convicted. Trump was right that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes. Presumably, his followers would acquit him of the shooting as well. Yes?
I take it, you will, any guilty, for anything, may be, could, presumably….
I see your problem, you live in fantasy. Zero facts, zero basis, zero core values. zero X zero, cubed. (hint: still zero)
Famous last words. You may have to eat them. We shall see….
I don’t what they say.
When the Republicans win in a landslide…they remove the RINOs…and go scorched Earth
Cut 50% of DC federal Government
Move 40% of DC federal Government to the Heartland
Jail Pelosi, Biden and other Klans…SELLING THE US Government
cut 90% of aid to big cities!
Outlaw public unions making political donations or ads!
Destroy the Democrat Party
What you just said is, “Implement the ‘manifest tenor’ of the U.S. Constitution.” All that you said is already the fundamental law of America – the American thesis is: Freedom and Self-Reliance. 90% of the government is anti-American, unconstitutional communism. It did not exist in 1788 and it cannot exist now. 90% of public worker jobs must be eliminated and striking public workers must be fired and denied public employment in perpetuity. Public worker unions criminally nullify elections and usurp the power of elected officials and must be criminally prosecuted and irrevocably decertified in perpetuity. American governmental size and structure precisely replicates global communist and socialist governmental structures; it was never designed or intended to do so.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity. The same article provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the power to “take” private property for public use.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while it is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.
The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.