Czech Anti Vaxxer Dies After Deliberately Getting Covid

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: Oldcarpy2
Official cause of death is not determined by a family member. I thought you were some kind of lawyer.

Better steer on it than your opinion, though.

Again....
This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!
OR the Corner Pub!!!!!

All rules for POLITE debate will be enforced.
Members must also Stay on Topic!!!
Trolling, And What To Do About It
Go after the ball not the player.





You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Madviking
According to the CDC's data, only 5% of covid deaths had solely Covid as a cause. 95% had an average of four comorbidities. Yes that is 4 with a capital F.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Madviking
What were her comorbidities? US and Italian data show 95% have multiple serious conditions in addition to covid.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
An anti vaxxer has died after deliberately contracting it, apparently to gain immunity.

Hana Horka, 57, was a famous folk singer.

Her family blame anti vaxxers for her death.

There are lots of sources for this out there, here's just one:



www.news24.com...

Post the data, please? 95% of what?

Then post your data.

I am going to post this data, direct from the CDC.

Were you not aware of this data?

www.cdc.gov...

"Comorbidities and other conditions
Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The number of deaths that mention one or more of the conditions indicated is shown for all deaths involving COVID-19 and by age groups. For over 5% of these deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 4.0 additional conditions or causes per death. For data on deaths involving COVID-19 by time-period, jurisdiction, and other health conditions, Socrata icon Click here to download."

Thanks. I'll have a look.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

My opinion is to wait and let the authorities determine the cause of death and quit making flimsy assumptions.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Well, her family does not seem to be under any doubt.

Are any members of her family medical doctors?
Better yet, are any of her family members virologists?

Are you?

So. We can just ignore them? Well done.

Were you there?

They were.

I don’t have to be a virologist.
You are the one pushing them out there as a reference.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: LordAhriman

Wow, you posted a pay wall.

No I didn't. Might want to run a malware scan.

Nope.

Your link gave me an ultimatum to view it.

I already have the latest version of my browser thank you...

No serious thinker would say 15 minutes prior you were getting dressed to go out after saying you had recovered, then you are found to have choked to death and the response is "must have been COVID". The bigger concern isn't that Covid is the claim, it's the fact that some people on here aren't questioning it with every fiber of their brain.

originally posted by: AcrobaticDreams
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I read this on the BBC. These stories are obviously out there but they do their best to ignore and dismiss the people who were harmed by the vaccine? Just be balanced. I hate how each side only present one view.

Yep, standard propaganda technique. Propaganda is quite annoying, but those using it know it works, and often they argue, 'well the other side is doing it as well, so it's OK if we do it as well cause we use it with good intentions.' (i.e. the end justifies the means)

Between brackets below is mine:

“A fool will believe anything.”—PROVERBS 14:15, TODAY’S ENGLISH VERSION.

THERE is a difference—a big difference—between education and propaganda. Education shows you how to think. Propaganda tells you what to think. [although propagandists often also tell you how to think, conditioning and indoctrinating their way of thinking, their way of using logic, or should I say, twisting logic] Good educators present all sides of an issue and encourage discussion. Propagandists relentlessly force you to hear their view and discourage discussion. [although, often they pretend otherwise, which can be recognized when they are misrepresenting any argument that might be used against the views they are promoting, addressing straw man arguments or only the weakest arguments against their position, in an effort to make their case seem stronger and to make it appear that they are not discouraging discussion and presenting all sides of an issue] Often their real motives are not apparent. They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

How can you protect yourself from the types of people that the Bible calls “profitless talkers” and “deceivers of the mind”? (Titus 1:10) Once you are familiar with some of their tricks [discussed on the preceding page for this article], you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way. Here are some ways to do this. [so this is not discussing the earlier mentioned "tricks", it assumes you've already read the preceding page, this is about some ways to evaluate any message or information]

Be selective: ...

Use discernment: ...

Put information to the test: ...

Ask questions: ...

Do not just follow the crowd: ...

...

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

Preceding page: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

... This communications revolution has led to information overload, as people are inundated by countless messages from every quarter. Many respond to this pressure by absorbing messages more quickly and accepting them without questioning or analyzing them.

The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.

...

Bolded part, i.e. "twisting logic", as I put it earlier in my remark in between brackets. Most people generally think of propaganda to be more something for the political arena, but it is also a big component of the promotion of scientism (a form of religion) and in the religious arena. The various sciences are saturated with those propagandizing in favor of their unverified philosophies/ideas, often untestable/unverifiable ones (string theory, the multiverse, M-theory, one key aspect in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics concerning the role of the observer, evolutionary philosophies and myths/false stories, etc.).

The medical sciences are not exempt from this behaviour. Especially in the fields of psychology and evolutionary psychology. The concept of 'publish or perish' also further fuels this behaviour. As discussed in this article:

Fraud in Science—Why It’s on the Increase (Awake!—1990)

“THE competition is savage. Winners reap monumental rewards; losers face oblivion. It’s an atmosphere in which an illicit shortcut is sometimes irresistible​—not least because the Establishment is frequently squeamish about confronting wrongdoing.” So opened the article “Publish or Perish​—or Fake It” in U.S.News & World Report. To escape perishing, many scientific researchers are faking it.

The pressure on scientists to publish in scientific journals is overwhelming. The longer the list of published papers to the researcher’s name, the better his chances for employment, promotion, tenure in a university, and government grants to finance his research. The federal government “controls the largest source of research funding, $5.6 [thousand million] a year from the National Institutes of Health.”

Because “the scientific community shows little stomach for confronting its ethical dilemma,” “has been strangely reluctant to probe too deeply for hard data about its ethical conduct,” and “isn’t keen about cleaning house or even looking closely for malfeasance,” congressional committees have held hearings and considered legislation to do the job of policing for them. (New Scientist; U.S.News & World Report) This prospect wrings from scientists much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Yet, one science journal asks and answers the question: “Is the house of science clean and in order? The bit of evidence that reaches the public invites serious doubts.”

Some researchers eliminate data that does not support what they want to prove (called cooking); report more tests or trials than were actually run (called trimming); appropriate for their own use data or ideas of other researchers (called plagiarism); and make up experiments or data they never performed or produced (called forging). A cartoon in a science journal poked fun at this last tactic, one scientist talking to another and saying of a third: ‘He’s published a lot since he took up that creative writing course.’

“What’s the major product of scientific research these days? Answer: Paper,” U.S.News & World Report said. “Hundreds of new journals are being founded each year to handle the flood of research papers cranked out by scientists who know that the road to academic success is a long list of articles to their credit.” Quantity, not quality, is the goal. Forty thousand journals published yearly produce a million articles, and part of this flood “is symptomatic of fundamental ills, including a publish-​or-​perish ethic among researchers that is stronger now than ever and encourages shoddy, repetitive, useless or even fraudulent work.”

A senior editor at The Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Drummond Rennie, commented on the lack of quality: “There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-​serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.”

Making Mountains out of Molehills

The publish-​or-​perish syndrome has made many researchers very resourceful in nursing a modest output of published articles into phenomenal numbers. They write one article, then chop it up into four smaller ones​—called salami slicing in the jargon of the profession. In this way, instead of a publication credit for one article, they have four articles added to their publications list. Then they may send the same article to several journals, and each time it is published, it is counted again. More often than not, one article may show several scientists as authors, and each author adds the article to his list of published articles. A two- or three-​page article may show 6, 8, 10, 12, or more authors.

On the NOVA program entitled “Do Scientists Cheat?” telecast on October 25, 1988, one scientist commented on this practice: “People are trying to get their names attached to as many publications as they possibly can, so that very commonly now you find huge teams where 16 people all sign their name to a particular publication, which probably wasn’t worth publishing in the first place. But this is part of a kind of rat race, a competitiveness, a vulgar quantitative counting mentality that is absolutely encouraged by the structure of science in the United States today.” Some listed as coauthors may have had very little to do with the article, may not even have read it, yet add the article to their list of publications. Such bloated lists influence the granting of research requests involving hundreds of thousands of dollars of public funds.

Peer Review, a Safeguard Against Fraud?

[whereislogic: this section starts with quoting someone who is clearly promoting the religion of scientism, Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines this as “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation.” When modern science was born in the 17th century, spectacular scientific breakthroughs enveloped science in a halo of infallibility and authority, producing scientism, a religion in itself, a sacred cow. The person in question is Isaac Asimov. But many others argue or think just like he's doing here concerning what is called "peer review". I highly recommend clicking this link and reading the whole section, don't want to use too much from an external source.]

originally posted by: Madviking
According to the CDC's data, only 5% of covid deaths had solely Covid as a cause. 95% had an average of four comorbidities. Yes that is 4 with a capital F.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Madviking
What were her comorbidities? US and Italian data show 95% have multiple serious conditions in addition to covid.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
An anti vaxxer has died after deliberately contracting it, apparently to gain immunity.

Hana Horka, 57, was a famous folk singer.

Her family blame anti vaxxers for her death.

There are lots of sources for this out there, here's just one:



www.news24.com...

Post the data, please? 95% of what?

Albertans are catching on and the “experts” had to go into more detail regarding the hospitalization with and from Covid.

This is from yesterday.

“Our analytics team has been working hard with Alberta Health Services to provide a robust summary of the proportion of new hospital admissions that are due to COVID, as compared to admissions because of other causes.
We will provide this information on our website later this week, but for the time being, a summary is being included as a part of my weekday Twitter account updates.
Our most recent data from new admissions since late last week indicates that 51% of new admissions to non-ICU spaces are due to COVID infection and 49% are cases where the infection was not determined to be a cause of admission, or where it was not possible to determine.
For ICU, the percentage of new admissions due to COVID was 74% and 26% were incidental infections or unclear.“

If they had been honest from the beginning it appears that the pandemic numbers would have been much different.

www.alberta.ca...

a reply to: whereislogic

And they say there’s no propaganda…

“Canadian military leaders saw the pandemic as a unique opportunity to test out propaganda techniques on an unsuspecting public”

ottawacitizen.com... orces-report-says

a reply to: NorthOfStuff

Blimey. So many personal attacks and off topic derailment attempts.

I just posted a story and get all this grief.

Sad day for ATS.

Not trying to make you sad Carpy.
It’s just that this spider web of info and disinfo is so interconnected when it comes to the Covid topic.

Have a stout on me.

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff
Not trying to make you sad Carpy.
It’s just that this spider web of info and disinfo is so interconnected when it comes to the Covid topic.

Have a stout on me.

Stout? Yuk!

🍷😉

Are they any more reliable in the age of Covid?

According to the data I posted, almost 15,000 people were listed as Covid deaths who had died from drug overdoses, falls, and poisonings.

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

My opinion is to wait and let the authorities determine the cause of death and quit making flimsy assumptions.

They are finally admitting all of this, but it's not well known unless people pay attention and research it even now. The CDC finally spoke on the subject of 95% comorbidities, even though their DATA said so a year ago.

Regarding the hospitalizations, it is totally dishonest and evil that the media was stating X number of children or people are hospitalized for covid, when a lot of them were admitted for other reasons and then randomly tested for covid. "See, they are in the hospital for covid!"

www.wkrn.com...

nypost.com...

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff

originally posted by: Madviking
According to the CDC's data, only 5% of covid deaths had solely Covid as a cause. 95% had an average of four comorbidities. Yes that is 4 with a capital F.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Madviking
What were her comorbidities? US and Italian data show 95% have multiple serious conditions in addition to covid.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
An anti vaxxer has died after deliberately contracting it, apparently to gain immunity.

Hana Horka, 57, was a famous folk singer.

Her family blame anti vaxxers for her death.

There are lots of sources for this out there, here's just one:



www.news24.com...

Post the data, please? 95% of what?

Albertans are catching on and the “experts” had to go into more detail regarding the hospitalization with and from Covid.

This is from yesterday.

“Our analytics team has been working hard with Alberta Health Services to provide a robust summary of the proportion of new hospital admissions that are due to COVID, as compared to admissions because of other causes.
We will provide this information on our website later this week, but for the time being, a summary is being included as a part of my weekday Twitter account updates.
Our most recent data from new admissions since late last week indicates that 51% of new admissions to non-ICU spaces are due to COVID infection and 49% are cases where the infection was not determined to be a cause of admission, or where it was not possible to determine.
For ICU, the percentage of new admissions due to COVID was 74% and 26% were incidental infections or unclear.“

If they had been honest from the beginning it appears that the pandemic numbers would have been much different.

www.alberta.ca...

a reply to: NorthOfStuff
Interesting..good to see some data.

Is that how the person in question died?

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: Madviking

True, but a covid "choking death" doesn't pass the smell test no matter what a family member says. Carpy takes their word for gospel - debate over. Then pulls the victim card.

a reply to: Madviking
yes

Are you certain that they didn't die of covid with the worst comorbidity known to humans: white supremacy? That's my scientific guess after watching CNN.

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: Madviking
yes