Czech folk singer Hanka Horka dies after getting deliberately infected with COVID-19

[jstern]

alright.

what do you think? anything you find interesting in particular, or just in general? i think he goes into detail on some things that the mainstream media has either misled on or spread misinformation about. in addition to that, he attempts to clear up shit that people mindlessly bark from both extremes of the argument. in a nutshell, although is opinions may lean a bit left, i think his approach is fair and one of the more unbiased you'll find from a professional.

From what I remember. He's human, he's very knowledgeable, much more knowledgeable than the majority. But for me he's also an example of don't put all of your eggs in one basket. He says that he thinks young people should get one dose. That's very reasonable given the evidence. Chances of developing myocarditis increases with every dose. But as a human he might not be aware of the concept that many others "scientist," "experts," whatever you want to call them. Like Robert Malone, see evidence that people who are vaccinated are more likely to catch the Omicron. Because the immune system has been expecting a particular type of opponent, but getting something different. T Cell memory and all that BS. You don't vaccinate someone with a flu shot from two years ago, for this year's version. Etc. So what's the point in a healthy young person getting vaccinated for the Omicron.

Again, he's very knowledgeable, and there's value in that. I would listen nonstop to his interpretation of myorcaditis data on the issue. But in that knowledge, he's just a human with limited time, and so his focus is going to miss many of the aspects that I find interesting about this whole thing. He's not going to consider censoring, not just of Joe Rogan like they talked, but the censoring of anyone who's vaccine injured. What about the fact that Maddie de Garay was listed as a stomach ache. I'm sure knowledge of that would affect his overall big picture. So if he's not aware of it, it' not going to factor in to his saying it's ok to vaccinate young people with one dose.

[beasted]

What exactly did I say in my post that seems to be getting this irritated reaction?

What I've found during this whole Covid thing is that there are 3 types of people. Those curious who consume a lot of information about every little aspect. Those who just don't care either way. "I have to get a vaccine to go to this concert? Ok." And those who lack any curiosity, I would say mentally lazy, and so are really impressed by media terms, "Experts say..." It's an out to them, they don't have to think and from their point of view they 100% got the right answer for the test. "I follow the experts, as an intelligent person I follow science..." They follow headlines, not even articles, and then they assume the same for everybody else.

As we've all seen, people like say Blade, Off the Court, they just read a headline from CNN. And then they assume that that's what everybody else does. But rather than their "Experts Say" headline from CNN, they think that the person who's actually curious just listened to some random podcast and that's why they have their opinion.

You say things like mRNA collects in ovaries as though you've done clinical research and published many research papers on this or have been in a laboratory for the last 24 months and qualified the findings of your peers.

You assess the risk of a woman based on photos/video and pretend to know her medical situation and say whether she should get a rushed-to-public vaccine based on a less than favorable body mass index and literally nothing else.

Speaking in such like I like you call it: "vague detail" one has to believe you're either a licensed professional or have a PhD in some biological science and there's no need to qualify anything you've said because you've already published the work behind your opinions.

It's reckless to give such advice if you're literally a know-nothing which is at least 95% of us in the world who've only read a few articles and watched some videos. Most of us are too stupid to even understand a published clinical research paper even though most of the info is accessible to the public. Most of us also have no ability to test the theories published in such papers either.

But maybe you are a true member of the scientific/medical community and my comments are all for naught.

[ZenMaster]

unfortunately, none of these doctors get any press or mainstream attention so questions remain up in the air.

Well, e.g nothing is stopping the doctor in the Rogan video from saying himsel that what we know about Myocarditis and Covid is only associated with past strains, and that's it's probably way less with Omikron considering the vaaaaaaast majority of both vaccianted and unvaccinated only suffer from sniffles and a bit of fatigue.

It's interesting too how that one doctor points about a high level researcher who was OK with giving his kids two injections, but not booster.
I've seen this quite a bit from people within the medical field - or doctors who are OK with themselves taking the vaccine, but not their kids - and it would indicate that there is something with the vaccines that you don't want to get too much of. I've never seen this mentioned about vaccines in the past except from anti vaxxers, but I might have not just been paying attention.

[diamenz]

From what I remember. He's human, he's very knowledgeable, much more knowledgeable than the majority. But for me he's also an example of don't put all of your eggs in one basket. He says that he thinks young people should get one dose. That's very reasonable given the evidence. Chances of developing myocarditis increases with every dose. But as a human he might not be aware of the concept that many others "scientist," "experts," whatever you want to call them. Like Robert Malone, see evidence that people who are vaccinated are more likely to catch the Omicron. Because the immune system has been expecting a particular type of opponent, but getting something different. T Cell memory and all that BS. You don't vaccinate someone with a flu shot from two years ago, for this year's version. Etc. So what's the point in a healthy young person getting vaccinated for the Omicron.

Again, he's very knowledgeable, and there's value in that. I would listen nonstop to his interpretation of myorcaditis data on the issue. But in that knowledge, he's just a human with limited time, and so his focus is going to miss many of the aspects that I find interesting about this whole thing. He's not going to consider censoring, not just of Joe Rogan like they talked, but the censoring of anyone who's vaccine injured. What about the fact that Maddie de Garay was listed as a stomach ache. I'm sure knowledge of that would affect his overall big picture. So if he's not aware of it, it' not going to factor in to his saying it's ok to vaccinate young people with one dose.

interesting. that's fair enough, jstern.

[tpols]

Get a social life and you wouldn't even need these toilet researcher studies LMAO - people DO just up and die from Covid. People you'd think were healthy, people you'd think should've and guaranteed would've lived another 20-30+ years. That's a long time man, they didn't have one foot in the grave. Is it common? No of course not most people of course survive but at this point I know of about a dozen within just 2 years which is like 4 times the number of people I've known to die in a car accident in my entire 35 year lifetime. I know of ZERO people who died from the vaccine and also in my entire life I know of zero people who've ever died of an actual cold or flu. And in this 3rd wave it was all the unvaxxed people in everyone's social circles going to the hospital and/or dying. Vaccinated people were getting sick, but had cold like symptoms on average by comparison. I would hear of coworkers with relatives in ERs and as mentioned some died - every single one having so much trouble as to be hospitalized was unvaccinated. Didn't hear of a single instance of a vaccinated person winding up in the ER in that same timeframe. The overwhelming majority that got REALLY sick didn't have the vaccine.

Go figure.

I don't need the CDC to tell me jack shit nor your armchair podcasters pretending to be experts and honestly you shouldn't either unless you live in bum**** nowhere and don't even have a social circle to speak of. It's not that hard to count - no need for outside information at this point.

Dr. Robert Malone is an armchair podcaster? He was a leading research developer of mRNA technology at its inception. This is one of the most untruthful posts I've ever seen. You're admitting you derive your whole global mindset for the issue on your "social circle" which is a joke sample size even if you're the most popular guy of all time.

[BurningHammer]

Dr. Robert Malone is an armchair podcaster? He was a leading research developer of mRNA technology at its inception. This is one of the most untruthful posts I've ever seen. You're admitting you derive your whole global mindset for the issue on your "social circle" which is a joke sample size even if you're the most popular guy of all time.

Then he has gone 180 on mRNA for the subject he is well-known for.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...keptic/619734/

It sounds like Dr. Malone has been salty he didn't get the recognition he thinks he deserves when he isn't the only researcher in early days mRNA pioneer. Kinda feel bad for him, I guess.

[jstern]

You say things like mRNA collects in ovaries as though you've done clinical research and published many research papers on this or have been in a laboratory for the last 24 months and qualified the findings of your peers.

You assess the risk of a woman based on photos/video and pretend to know her medical situation and say whether she should get a rushed-to-public vaccine based on a less than favorable body mass index and literally nothing else.

Speaking in such like I like you call it: "vague detail" one has to believe you're either a licensed professional or have a PhD in some biological science and there's no need to qualify anything you've said because you've already published the work behind your opinions.

It's reckless to give such advice if you're literally a know-nothing which is at least 95% of us in the world who've only read a few articles and watched some videos. Most of us are too stupid to even understand a published clinical research paper even though most of the info is accessible to the public. Most of us also have no ability to test the theories published in such papers either.

But maybe you are a true member of the scientific/medical community and my comments are all for naught.

My original post was rushed, since I had to go. So certain things sounded more rude towards the woman than it should have. The point was that if you're of a certain demographic, don't take the risk.

Perhaps, like the majority of people, you are not aware that 30% of all Covid deaths are of people 85 years and older. And that the average Covid death is higher than the average natural life expectancy. And that the average Covid death has 3 comorbidities. The average person is going to think that everybody has an equal chance. But since I'm so used to knowing these figures, I assume, or proceed as if everybody knows it, and so it might sound insulting. (Example: Me saying that you don't just die of Covid.)

There's an insane amount of data that branches out into dozens of topics. The Corona and deaths is a tiny portion of it. From the censoring, to even how academic papers and trials are run for all drugs. It's just a whole big scam that's extremely hard to belief. Because to understand, it requires interest and the ability to comprehend a large amount of data. And not in one sitting.

I just don't say things. Speaking of Robert Malone, I was going to post a thread about something that he said, here on ISH, months before I or anyone knew who he was. It was very compelling. But I didn't post it because if you Googled his name to find out who he was, all the top websites made him sound like a mentally ill homeless guy who is delusional and thinks he's a virologist. It would have been too much of a worthless uphill battle when the ISH vaccine people Googled his name. The things he said would have been discredited, dismissed. (Look at the previous post. No talk about any of the things he's talked about, the logic and deep explanations behind it, and just an emotional, "He's just salty because he's not getting credit.")

I also knew about Ivermectin long before Axe started talking about it, but I would never talk about it, until months later when I got a good sense of it.

The same thing with these vaccines and the Corona, people were here arguing about it for over year before I joined the conversation. Because unless I'm very familiar with the topic, I'm just not going to talk about it.

[Cleverness]

What type of mitigation was worthy?

We've experienced about ~21+ months of gov't restrictions and we'll spend trillions of dollars using/enforcing the following NPIs:

-mass testing
-tracing
-stay-at-home orders
-business restrictions
-school closures
-mask mandates
-travel bans
-vaccine passports/requirements (In case you're not aware, some of the vaccine requirements including going to restaurants, traveling into the US, going to sporting events & concerts, attending a school, and employment.)

How many infections have each of those NPIs prevented so far?

Although I answered his (strange) question, Hiphop still hasn't responded... but "beasted" sounds like he thinks knows what he's talking about. Beasted, care to answer?

[beasted]

My original post was rushed, since I had to go. So certain things sounded more rude towards the woman than it should have. The point was that if you're of a certain demographic, don't take the risk.

Perhaps, like the majority of people, you are not aware that 30% of all Covid deaths are of people 85 years and older. And that the average Covid death is higher than the average natural life expectancy. And that the average Covid death has 3 comorbidities. The average person is going to think that everybody has an equal chance. But since I'm so used to knowing these figures, I assume, or proceed as if everybody knows it, and so it might sound insulting. (Example: Me saying that you don't just die of Covid.)

There's an insane amount of data that branches out into dozens of topics. The Corona and deaths is a tiny portion of it. From the censoring, to even how academic papers and trials are run for all drugs. It's just a whole big scam that's extremely hard to belief. Because to understand, it requires interest and the ability to comprehend a large amount of data. And not in one sitting.

I just don't say things. Speaking of Robert Malone, I was going to post a thread about something that he said, here on ISH, months before I or anyone knew who he was. It was very compelling. But I didn't post it because if you Googled his name to find out who he was, all the top websites made him sound like a mentally ill homeless guy who is delusional and thinks he's a virologist. It would have been too much of a worthless uphill battle when the ISH vaccine people Googled his name. The things he said would have been discredited, dismissed. (Look at the previous post. No talk about any of the things he's talked about, the logic and deep explanations behind it, and just an emotional, "He's just salty because he's not getting credit.")

I also knew about Ivermectin long before Axe started talking about it, but I would never talk about it, until months later when I got a good sense of it.

The same thing with these vaccines and the Corona, people were here arguing about it for over year before I joined the conversation. Because unless I'm very familiar with the topic, I'm just not going to talk about it.

All I'm reading here is everything you know, but not seeing anything what you don't know. Nearly everything you've posted is framed with certainty. Everyone who claims to know it all is usually a know-nothing. No offense, just due diligence for people who will blindly follow your opinions.

[jstern]

All I'm reading here is everything you know, but not seeing anything what you don't know. Nearly everything you've posted is framed with certainty. Everyone who claims to know it all is usually a know-nothing. No offense, just due diligence for people who will blindly follow your opinions.

You will never know everything I know, unless you were telepathic. Just like you will never know everything I learned, or anybody else learned during a semester of a Chemistry or Biology or any random college class. That cannot be done in a couple of posts, it's too much content, way too many hours. That's why a person has to do their own research and verification.

Another thing, if it sounds as though I'm saying something with certainty, you could verify it yourself. But instead it seems as though that's not an option that you're aware of, so from your perspective you think I'm just mentioning willy nilly opinions. That's not good.

I can't be referencing everything I post, but I'll try to do one quickly.

Why did it sound as though I'm certain that 30% of Covid deaths are of people 85 years an older? Because it's a fact that you can look up. In the past I used to get the numbers using a calculator, calculating all deaths 85+ years divided by total deaths. And then calculate what percentage of the population is over 85 years old. So you have to dig deep to find stuff.



It's a little lower now, like around 29%.

[Overdrive]

Dr. Robert Malone is an armchair podcaster? He was a leading research developer of mRNA technology at its inception. This is one of the most untruthful posts I've ever seen. You're admitting you derive your whole global mindset for the issue on your "social circle" which is a joke sample size even if you're the most popular guy of all time.

Anecdotal evidence is basically all the antivaxxers got and now you attack the same mindset? Large scale numbers show that the desease is 10^× times more dangerous than the vaccine for any age group.

[beasted]

You will never know everything I know, unless you were telepathic. Just like you will never know everything I learned, or anybody else learned during a semester of a Chemistry or Biology or any random college class. That cannot be done in a couple of posts, it's too much content, way too many hours. That's why a person has to do their own research and verification.

Another thing, if it sounds as though I'm saying something with certainty, you could verify it yourself. But instead it seems as though that's not an option that you're aware of, so from your perspective you think I'm just mentioning willy nilly opinions. That's not good.

I can't be referencing everything I post, but I'll try to do one quickly.

Why did it sound as though I'm certain that 30% of Covid deaths are of people 85 years an older? Because it's a fact that you can look up. In the past I used to get the numbers using a calculator, calculating all deaths 85+ years divided by total deaths. And then calculate what percentage of the population is over 85 years old. So you have to dig deep to find stuff.



It's a little lower now, like around 29%.

Help me understand why I would trust the "big pharma" data of the CDC when it comes to deaths, but not the "big pharma" data of the CDC on vaccine safety and efficacy? Why are we cherry picking?

I don't mind anyone having any opinion on anything. Choosing what sources to trust, who not to trust, or having conspiracy theories. We just all need to keep consistent energy. Not feel-like energy.

[jstern]

Help me understand why I would trust the "big pharma" data of the CDC when it comes to deaths, but not the "big pharma" data of the CDC on vaccine safety and efficacy? Why are we cherry picking?

I don't mind anyone having any opinion on anything. Choosing what sources to trust, who not to trust, or having conspiracy theories. We just all need to keep consistent energy. Not feel-like energy.

I can't believe this question. It shows such black and white thinking. The fact that you think it's cherry picking. The CDC gets death data from sources that's available to everyone. It's very difficult for them to hide the numbers, other than by dictating what counts as a Covid death. But you're not going to see the CDC, Joe Biden, or anyone in the main stream media talking, mentioning anything about 30% of Covid deaths are of people 85 years and older, or that the average Covid deaths has an average of 3+ cormorbidities.

The way you think seems to involve picking and choosing side, or a particular person to just believe. And then you project your particular way of thinking into others. Rather than looking at everything. You're assuming that what you do is what others do.

In my previous post I mentioned that you assumed that I willy nilly said that 30% of Corona deaths are a tiny group of the population, the 85+ year olds. Because you don't have a concept of actually looking into things. If I said it, then it's an opinion. There is absolutely no such thing as actually looking up the data. From your perspective it seems that that's just not an option, a reality at all. Your way of being, so you project that everything is random opinions. It seems like you have no concept of anything else.

Why wouldn't you trust the data of big pharma on the vaccine safety. Again, that's for you to look up and determine for yourself. I hate to say it but that would require hours, and your ability to reason things out for yourself. Not hours at one time, but cumulative hours over the course of months. Little by little. There are thousands of little things to consider. For example, one little thing is Maddie de Garay and her family of vaccine cucks. Why would Pfizer list her symptoms as a stomach ache? What would happen if her symptoms were not listed as a stomach ache in the results of the final trial for kids 12 years and younger. Would it mean that they would not get emergency use authorization to vaccinate kids, and thus lose out on tens of billions of dollars? Why is it so important to vaccinate kids when a sample of 48,000 HEALTHY kids that had Covid resulted in 0 deaths?

[beasted]

I can't believe this question. It shows such black and white thinking. The fact that you think it's cherry picking. The CDC gets death data from sources that's available to everyone. It's very difficult for them to hide the numbers, other than by dictating what counts as a Covid death. But you're not going to see the CDC, Joe Biden, or anyone in the main stream media talking, mentioning anything about 30% of Covid deaths are of people 85 years and older, or that the average Covid deaths has an average of 3+ cormorbidities.

The way you think seems to involve picking and choosing side, or a particular person to just believe. And then you project your particular way of thinking into others. Rather than looking at everything. You're assuming that what you do is what others do.

In my previous post I mentioned that you assumed that I willy nilly said that 30% of Corona deaths are a tiny group of the population, the 85+ year olds. Because you don't have a concept of actually looking into things. If I said it, then it's an opinion. There is absolutely no such thing as actually looking up the data. From your perspective it seems that that's just not an option, a reality at all. Your way of being, so you project that everything is random opinions. It seems like you have no concept of anything else.

Why wouldn't you trust the data of big pharma on the vaccine safety. Again, that's for you to look up and determine for yourself. I hate to say it but that would require hours, and your ability to reason things out for yourself. Not hours at one time, but cumulative hours over the course of months. Little by little. There are thousands of little things to consider. For example, one little thing is Maddie de Garay and her family of vaccine cucks. Why would Pfizer list her symptoms as a stomach ache? What would happen if her symptoms were not listed as a stomach ache in the results of the final trial for kids 12 years and younger. Would it mean that they would not get emergency use authorization to vaccinate kids, and thus lose out on tens of billions of dollars? Why is it so important to vaccinate kids when a sample of 48,000 HEALTHY kids that had Covid resulted in 0 deaths?

Nice way to dodge. The CDC is an organization. Their research centers evaluate the research done by others on masks/vaccines/epidemiology. Just like they tabulate the death counts reported by others.

They aren't holding their own clinical trials, just like they don't send their own scientists to the morgue to conduct mortality reasons. They're basically an information collection and vetting agency. So if I can't trust their vaccine advice, I can't trust their mask advice, I shouldn't trust any information they're providing. Your logic makes little to no sense. If I'm a Democrat and I don't trust Trump, even if he said the sky is blue I'm going to be extremely cautious and go crack a window and look for myself just to be sure. Instead you accept what you want at face value because it fits an agenda and you discard what you want. I'm an idealist so everything is always black or white.

You've answered all of my questions and made your intentions clear to everyone which was the original reason for my reply. Nobody needs to be right or wrong here. Good day.