“When I decide what to draw, I think about what. And then I create another me in my mind. Another me, a.k.a. mini-me, will be travelling through the space of what I want to draw. … Now, I send a bunch of my mini-mes all over the space to find the best suited location for me to draw. Which perspective should I use? Where is the coolest angle or composition with the most impact?”
It reminds me of Nikola Tesla, "Before I put a sketch on paper, the whole idea is worked out mentally. In my mind I change the construction, make improvements, and even operate the device. Without ever having drawn a sketch I can give the measurements of all parts to workmen, and when completed all these parts will fit, just as certainly as though I had made the actual drawings. It is immaterial to me whether I run my machine in my mind or test it in my shop."
Huh. This is the first time I read this quote, but it resonates so well. Does anyone else program this way? I usually sit for a while thinking about the problem, write the program mentally, try out edge cases, sometimes rework the program a few times, then once I feel it's correct I type out all the code, with that phase taking much less time than the "mental work". I'd estimate my usual process is about 90% thought, 10% typing. Anecdotally, from some teams I've worked in, people often find this process quite strange.
I'm the complete opposite. I'll think about the issue a little, but I'll just hack on it until it looks (and performs) right. Lots and lots of trial and error.
I draw the same way. My sketches are tons and tons of lines in the wrong places that somehow end up looking right, because the majority of the lines are near to or in the right places.
This is how I often program as well. I’ve realized that when you do this it’s crucial to have lots of tests to validate the program’s behavior, because it can easily look right and mostly run right without actually being correct.
Though this only works for the implementation side of things in my experience; you still need a good mental model of roughly what you’re aiming for architecturally, I think.
I have coded with a lot of people like this, and I think it is absolutely a fine way to approach things, and can even be good, but one piece of advice I always tell them:
The job has only started when it is working. That doesn't mean you're done! :)
Yes, knowing every detail of what I'm doing would bore me to death. I would rather "not know" and be amazed when the finished product, whether it be a loaf of bread, an application, or a sketch, emerge.
Yeah, I'm the same way. I never sit and think a long time - I prefer to think by doing, to externalize my thoughts so I can move it around, change things, see the thinking process in front of me as code and observable bahevior. Then I just keep shaping it until it becomes what I envisioned at the start. But then, where did that "vision" come from? Thinking over a long time, usually days and weeks, sometimes years.
Same - I can see the beginning and a partial end, but I find most of my ideas and inspiration occur once I get into it, and i can never see the final process to get there - it happens as I go.
It isn't strange, but I've found that writing code as I'm thinking helps me think about the problem.
Also, the domain is so large in programming, it is impossible for me to contextualize the entire set of edge cases. From remembering what exceptions to handle to library interactions, types, etc.. returned from various methods, it is just not really possible to think about even a small system this way (as in a system with 4-5 methods that perform real logic beyond "format this"
But, yeah - definitely large picture before I start to code. "Huh, yeah that calls that... ok.." but once I need to solve a problem "oh, this queue needs to be maintained this way... I need to compare these values against these values, oh, I need a second queue... I need to take this lock... oh this returns this type, which needs to be serialized so I need to figure that out..." - all of that stuff needs to be hashed out in a combination of paper & code. No way I can hold that in my head.
Kinda along those lines. What works best for me is to start with high level comments in plain English after thinking about what I'm trying to achieve for a bit. Then I make a skeleton of all the methods and classes that that will require. Then I'll comment each method (if not trivial) in plain English and only then actually begin development. The development phase seems to go by pretty quickly that way.
And as another plus, that makes my code very readable for others. I leave the comments in.
It depends. If it's an interesting problem I have to work on, but I can't right away, I think about it as I'm going about my day. Driving, cooking dinner, rotting in a meeting. Then by the time I get to finally do it, it's close to a fully-formed solution.
If it's a problem that I have to address right now, it's more like prototyping the first idea that comes to mind and then debugging and refining and being more critical.
Takes way too much RAM for my ADHD brain. If I work like that, solid concepts slip out of my grasp and I have to work them out all over again. Without writing things down, I miss obvious and important problems. Very envious of people who can maintain a large system in their head.
ADHD forces depth first search ("hyper focus") with a time penalty to avoid sinking too much into one effort. It's just a different search algorithm that will explore the problem landscape differently.
I find this the most effective way to do things as well, although at times I lack energy to do it properly, and end up banging away on the keyboard before I’ve properly thought things through (spending more net energy than if I’d done it properly, by the time I’m done).
The quote from Kim Jong Gi reminded me of the quote from Tesla (as well as other notes I've read) because it seems to indicate that they can visualize at extremely high detail and do this at very high speed... while also accurately retaining the information for use later.
Going off [1] and [2], it seems like she was definitely a lone writer but it also sounds like a lot of them were 75-100 pages - "[in 1962, Bruguera] offered her a contract to deliver a 76-page novel every week. This she did until Bruguera's collapse in 1985" which makes 23 years of 52 novels or about 1200.
I often operate this way, that I design and build and run or use constructions in my mind before I feel comfortable committing to sitting down at the computer and making it, or sketching it. I've been made aware, recently, that some people can't picture things in their mind, rotate them, apply physics to them, etc.
One thing about working this way is it's very frustrating to people who operate by documenting in real time, in something like org or Notion. I am not a note taker and I never really have been. I actually find my thinking gets cloudier when I try to document something I personally find "intuitive".
One example of this clash of styles was recently with a manager where he asked me, directly, how could I know how to design something if I hadn't written out the structure yet? How would I know to build space for a feature if I hadn't documented all the features that were required? I told him the requirements should be known, already, by anyone who was thinking about this problem... that for instance anyone who bothers to even imagine a "Create" action would automatically, symmetrically, imagine a "Delete" action and budget for that. He didn't agree and made me write it out anyway.
Good on your manager. Beliefs of personal infallibility are vastly overrated.
Sure, some things come in pairs. Some requirements are immutable and obvious. That's not the interesting part of a design, and if that's all it lists, then yes, you can probably skip writing a ton of detail. (Although current and future team mates are usually appreciative of knowing how something was designed, instead of just having to read the code - it makes it easier to distinguish mistake from intent)
But the meat of a design is in the trade-offs you made, in the choices that could reasonably go several ways. And no, for any reasonably complex system, you can't hold all of those in your head. And worse, if it's a trade-off, your weights may be wrong - your work is part of a larger effort, and you might miss constraints that seem "outside your area" but play into it.
I've read anecdotes about genius programmers who just sit around playing videogames or watching movies for a bit while they work out the details of complicated problems in their heads and then just finish up and start typing out the right solution in one shot.
Yeah it's unreal. And the result is so well-proportioned and 3-dimensional as well. I wonder how much of it was in his mind before he started, and how much was about figuring out what would fit along the way.
I can't remember the source, but I remember learning that his specialty was 5-point perspective and he could keep most of the drawing visualized in his mind before he even started. But he also improvised a lot and made decisions on the fly.
Unreal is definitely the right word, similar to watching Michael Jordan at his best.
I googled it (plenty of results...) and this was the basic analysis I found:
"The study of teenagers in Thailand following a second COVID-19 vaccination found that 18% -- not one third -- experienced any detectable cardiac effect, and that 1 in 301, not 1 in 43, had confirmed myocarditis. A large proportion of purported abnormalities detected by testing were without symptoms, and 100% of the teens in the study fully recovered after 14 days, the authors reported."
I'm not knowledgeable enough about anything regarding this subject to make any determinations about if that is being downplayed or misleading. I don't want to pretend like I understand it.
They're downplaying the harm by changing the context.
Re: "found that 18% -- not one third -- experienced any detectable cardiac effect"
This research found 1:43 harm - because that harm included detection of damage to the heart via blood:
"Troponin blood test - troponin is a protein which is released into the blood stream when the heart muscle is damaged. The troponin level provides a quick and accurate measure of any heart muscle damage. It's used to help in the assessment following suspected heart attack."
Troponin was part of the research - and in 1:43 trooponin was detected post-shot vs. pre-shot.
And 1:301 is still extremely bad, no? Certainly you can make a judgement on that? It is actually harming 1:43 but even harming a heart - which is permanent damage as the heart doesn't heal - 1:301 of harming a young person's heart is completely unacceptable - especially when they're at very little risk of any significant harm, nowhere near 1:301 from COVID itself.
Also, 100% of the teens didn't recover after 14 days: there is permanent heart damage in 1:43.
They also focus on only including myocarditis numbers to make their numbers seem less worse (1:301 is still horrific) - by excluding the case(s) of pericarditis from their numbers.
Notice how Reuters is at the top of Google, and Reuters has routinely misled people to train them of these shallow-narrow talking points - to give them enough narrative to make them think the alarming research was less true than it actually is.
I guess that would be a big concern if 301 wasn't literally the number of participants in the study. What kind of confidence interval can you extrapolate from that?
And elevated troponin is not definitive of permanent heart damage.
what’s going with twitter’s mobile video player (on safari). literally no way to just watch the video without it being half obscured with the tweet it’s attached to
He did a live drawing session 3 days ago in Paris and apparently died flying out from Europe.
According to his Facebook:
> It is with great sadness and a heavy heart that we inform you
of the sudden passing of Kim Jung Gi. After finishing his last
schedule in Europe, Jung Gi went to the airport to fly to New
York, where he experienced chest pains and was taken to a
nearby hospital for surgery, but sadly passed away.
October 3, 2022
After having done so much for us, you can now put down
your brushes.
Thank you Jung Gi.
October 5, 2022
Hun Jin Kim
If you wish to send a note or a drawing to his family, please send it to
1975-2022@kimjunggi.net
Presumably his finished work is for sale and display so naturally it's a bit less likely to see it up online in an easy viewing format. Check some of it out here though:
To answer the question though, yes wildly and objectively talented. Part of why you would want to watch a video is to see how he works, his competence is on full display more so than in the finished product perhaps.
That is because the way he draws is part of fascination with his art. The speed of it, that he does not need guidelines for perspective, that he just goes from top of head.
If you are curious whether drawing is to your liking, you can just skip to the end of the video. Or, google his name and filter for images - the filter is in top bar.
His process is impressive, no sketches or hesitation; he just "prints" whatever was in his mind. The scenes are incredibly detailed, with complex perspectives
He is a master, as he can produce realistic sketches/art, as well as comical adding his own unique flavors to it. He is really a swiss knife. You might not like a type of drawing but he definitely has it all. And his memory, and stream of consciousness sketching is what is superhuman, and they're super detailed massive sprawls of a sketch.
If there was one thing that I thought all HN users had in common it was the appreciation for a tremendous intellectual gift and better yet, doing no evil with it. I guess you proved me wrong.
I know several people that have died or almost died from Widowmaker heart attacks. Seeing a cardiologist and cardio in general is one of those things that a lot of men ignore because they feel healthy but it cannot be stressed enough, once you hit 30/40s, find a good cardiologist especially if you have a history of heart attacks in your family.
Also get your blood work done annually and cholesterol/ lipid panels checked by a qualified physician as that will be the first line of defense to sound the alarm and prevent heart disease from progressing.
I will never forget seeing a family member with their sternum cracked wide-open heart bypass, where they connect your heart to a machine while you are suspended in animation, so they can operate on bypassing your clogged arteries that could have been managed with a healthy lifestyle and drugs.
One thing I've heard is that under 40, people died from trauma (car crash) or suicide. After 40, the body really starts breaking down and people die from anything. Cancer, heart problems, lots of stuff out of the blue much without prior causes like smoking.
Yearly blood panels provide time series data against which it might be easier to spot changes even if all metrics are in the "healthy" zone.
At Kaiser, which usually has its own lab in every facility, yearly blood panels are completely routine. As an HMO Kaiser has every incentive to minimize costs, and they don't make any such practices routine unless and until they've been demonstrated to provide clear benefit across their patient population. (They also regularly run all sorts of trials--they're vertically integrated from the research lab on up.)
Kaisers / HMOs are not that unique in having annual blood work of standard items. I think they have to do it by law at some level, with PPO insurance 'preventive' stuff like that is usually much cheaper or 'free'.
> Like if you saw your favourite band improvise their next #1 hit song from scratch live on stage on their first try. Like an author sitting down and reciting an unwritten novel from start to finish. Absolute unthinkable skill.
Edit: ...which still does not contain this critical piece of news. I cannot avoid thinking of that of Martin Perscheid, which on 5 August 2021 had an update "Unfortunately I currently find myself incapacitated, and responding to your queries will take a while". And ended with the same formula of former posts: "Thank you for your attention".
He was a master. Every human being should be aware of the raw talent he possessed and exercised. He was a true prodigy. It isn't wrong for people to compare him to Da Vinci, or Michelangelo as one of the greatest artists of all time. Different era's, etc, but it's just to show he was in a very rarified class of folks. Man, I'm going to really miss his art, and watching him dazzle the canvas live, straight from his mind.
He was everything I loved growing up - robots, samurai, mech all the anime I've watched. He was so talented at multiple genres, could draw architecture or portraits of people with equally refined and masterful skill.
He was the artist's artist, in a world full of artists, where people don't recognize individual artists anymore like back in the day with Da Vinci, Van Gogh, etc. Even though many of the artists in history were only celebrated well after their death. Glad, Kim Jung Gi, got the recognition he deserved while he was at his prime. He still had so much to offer, and I hate that he left the world too soon due to a stupid heart attack. I really want to discuss the solutions that we currently have and what people are working on to combat heart attacks in the future, and to be able to prevent them. It was so sad and devastating to have a loss of such proportions. His talent was immeasurable, but a genius or prodigy is apt. RIP Master Kim.
If inclined, please check out his sketchbooks, they are ~$100, and are worth every penny. 100's of amazing detailed sketches found. Also some are erotic, or NSFW for sure haha, as KJG was a tad crazy.
Also, people should know he was the nicest, most humble person ever. Always up for a photo with a fan or ready to sketch/sign for them. I was lucky to get a photo with him, and as always he is smiling pointing to me as if I'm "The Man" but Master Kim you are, and everyone knows it, and will cherish your art for ad infinitum. Rest easy Master Kim. Thoughts and Prayers for his family, and loved ones.
This is really sad, I used to see his drawings all the time on my Instagram and it was so sudden. He got me into drawing and really thinking about understanding perspective; I'm not good at drawing but man did it help my photography.
Absolute loss. I don't know if it was a heart attack or maybe a pulmonary embolism... he had covid before and I think the long flights might have been taking a toll.
Yes he's had a lot of travel. I met him in Paris last week. He and his entourage flew from Paris to Portugal to Poland and back to Paris all within 7-10 days. He's done several events in Paris the weekend before his death. I suspect he was fatigued and caused a bit of hypertension. I don't know if they were far away from a hospital or how long it took them to get there, or the severity of the heart attack, or if they gave an aspirin to help as a blood thinner(or even if that would help). But, so sad..a genius, lost at 47, I was reeling and so down the last 2 days.
Stop with the conspiracy nonsense already. You are not the holder of "tHiNgS THEY DoN't WaNT U tO KnOW!!1~", as much as you'd like that to be the case.
Sure?
How do you find a controll group of people vaccinated but without corona virus infection?
The virus is more likely the cause if there really is a spike in heart attack cases because pre vaccine studies already showed higher heart disease rates because of an infection.
Plus, the cardiac involvements post vaccinations have almost all been in young men - adolescents mostly, with symptoms within days. Kim was not an adolescent, so it seems unreasonable to presume vaccination as the cause.
Why does it seem unreasonable when it is a known side-effect (regardless how rare)? Is it more reasonable to assume mystery of the universe? Like, there's no better candidate, but we're more comfortable with 'random thing' than 'maybe we should investigate if the vaccine could have been involved' (i.e. vaccinated recently, previous reactions, etc).
It's strange to see so many people going out of their way to justify not investigating something because, god forbid, supporting doing so might make you a perceived nutter or something.
It's probably completely unrelated, but it's not something you just don't check because culture war.
A few years ago I decided I wanted to buy one of his limited prints with some extra money I was to earn. Then I pushed it off for a bit due to a few poor excuses, and eventually forgot about it.
And now his prints are of course ... out of print.
I'm not saying I need a numbered and signed limited print like The Tigers New Clothes [1] but it would be nice with maybe just a regularly, unsigned, unnumbered poster on my wall.
His sketchbooks are awesome, and often have a large poster/print in them. I think for sure they will have prints in the future, just not signed of-course any more as much as KJG would love to from up there.
Kim is quite famous in the art world. I remember a livestream where people sent it challenging ideas of things to draw, and he just casually draws them, entirely from memory, no references or googling of any images. Died way too young.
Maybe work less? I know four people who died of heart attack. Two of them were in terrible shape (obese, no exercise), while the other two were in very good shape, but were also workoholics in stresful jobs. One of them even got the attack while jogging in the park (he collapsed in a rarely frequented part of the park and was dead before anyone noticed) He was a CEO of a decent-sized company in his early fifties.
maybe he had genetic predisposition to heart attacks or cardiovascular disease. Maybe the stress on his heart went unchecked for years. Maybe it was a sudden embolism.
Whatever the reason was, we should all be having regular heart health checkups or preventative care that is readily available and to help. I mean, by now we should be having watches or devices that can monitor and read our heart health and vitals 24/7. It's 2022, ridiculous.
Yes his personal account posted the news in both English and Korean. His friends and the art community have been mourning and cancelling their combined appearances at light box (understandably)
You can enjoy things that are bad for you... Polish film director Zanussi said that it was always his goal to have poor health in the old age, because, if he didn't, it'd meant he hadn't push himself hard enough in the pursuit of excellence in his art.
Just because some person said this doesn't make it here suddenly true.
I personally find this anecdote really shitty to be honest. Only a balanced mind and body can sustaine quality over a long time.
Also bad health in old age is super critical for living long and bad. Would never thrive for this like laying in bed having pain every day being dependent
Yeah watched Master Kim a lot. And he always has fun sketching and interacting with people as his job. This wasn't his job, just his passion. Definitely genetic factors, etc, can lead to cardiovascular disease...we don't know every thing to comment. He was getting tired, more from traveling around a lot, as I talked to some of his entourage a week before his passing, don't know how much that affected his heart health.
The biggest surprise to me is that he died of a heart attack in an airport, where presumably AEDs are in ready supply and people are everywhere so it'd be immediately noticed. I really thought the survival rate in such a circumstance, even for catastrophic heart attacks, was pretty good!
I was recently taught in first aid class that the survival rate of an out-of-hospital heart attack is about 10-12%. Heart attacks have a ton of causes, lifestyle is just one of those. Sometimes, things go very wrong without an apparent, explainable cause. Medicine hasn't yet figured out everything that might cause a heart attack.
Even with help on scene, people still die in hospital a few days later because of a mix of underlying causes.
CPR on scene doubles the chances of survival, but they aren't a guarantee someone will survive. The entire point of learning CPR is to maximize the number of people that don't have to die in the event of a heart attack, no matter how minute that fraction.
About 800k people suffer a heart attack in the U.S. yearly accordign to the CDC (this is both in-hospital as well as out-of-hospital).
> I was recently taught in first aid class that the survival rate of an out-of-hospital heart attack is about 10-12%.
In my first aid course we were taught that the speed in which an AED is applied is the main contributing factor. Giving that most workplaces/homes/restaurants ...etc don't actually have an AED you would normally get one when the ambulance arrives.
Someone in the NHS had worked out the graph for distance from ambulance and % survival. He gave us all our % chance survival if our office didn't have and AED based upon the average rate from our work places and that we needed to wait for the ambulance. This was under the assumption that someone would start CPR almost straight after the arrest.
In our office this % without an AED was < 10% something insane like 6% chance survival. With an AED survival is much higher. He gave the figure of 95%+ survival rate for offices that had AED in them.
I brought this up in a company meeting with all staff there and the question was how much is an AED. I had already asked this and it was £750 for an older second hand one and £1100 for a brand new one.
Never bought the flipping AED.
So from what I made out my life was worth < £750 to the CEO.
Imagine if there was a meteor shield the company could buy for £250. If they didn't buy it, is your life worth less than £250 to them?
You have to divide the cost by the likelihood of a life being saved to find the proxy figure for what that's worth. If there's a 1% chance that an AED will save a life during its useful lifespan, that suggests that they're valuing the life at less than £110000 (assuming a company would be inclined to buy new and that there are no required inspections along the lifespan of the AED).
I think the actual likelihood that any individual AED located in a company's workplace will save a life is much less than 1%.
The individual likelihood is not <1%. It's probably more like 10-15% per person. some would be low some much higher. But I wasn't the only employee there there was around 12 employees in that office. There were several who were > 50 years old and in the high risk category which could put them up to 25%.
So given this plus your statement about the £1100 for a brand new one divided by the lifespan which I think is 5-10 years for each £110 per year I would say the value my life < £1000.
The CEO himself was very high risk and had actually been in the hospital recently for a suspected heart attack (a small one that didn't require intervention).
> Imagine if there was a meteor shield the company could buy for £250
The chance of being hit by a meteor is several orders of magnitude smaller than having a heart attack so this comparison is invalid.
A better comparison is being in a car crash and yes if they didn't spend £250 per 5 years to drastically improve my chance of dying in a car crash my life is worthless to them.
The company never listened to me on any of my suggestions so I think they were not listening and just denied my request the same as ever other request of mine they denied. I once asked for a new mouse and they denied that as well some CEOs are just like that.
The likelihood is not "10-15% per person" that, during the operational lifespan of any given AED, that someone would have a heart attack at work, be treated by that specific AED, and have that treatment be life-saving. (That was the point of the meteor comparison.)
The lifespan is 10-15 years depending on the model. Most people were at moderate risk, unfit, drinking alcohol, poor exercise, high stress job ...etc. For moderate risk 10-15% is the stat over a 5 year period. Most where moderate a few, 2 I think, were low and we had a few high and one very high risk given he'd possibly already had a small heart attack.
Also note that you didn't take into consideration that the device is used for all in the office so over the 5 years it's cost must be divided by the number of employees it will cover which in this case was around 12.
Again your Meteor comparison was extremely poor. You are comparing something that is very common, a middle aged person having heart attack, to something extremely uncommon a similar demographic being hit by a meteor. Also to note that you can't say it it £250 to protect from a meteor strike it would likely be extremely expensive to protect an office from that versus the insanely cheap £1100 to almost guarantee that any of us survive a heart attack.
I've eddited to show the actual lifespan of the AED which is 10-15 year
How many same-office-colleague-years do you think you’ve had in your career? How many fatal heart attacks in the five across all those? For me, it’s “tens of thousands” and “zero”.
It's clear to me you've made up your mind and you feel that spending the money is a waste for something that's so low risk so I don't see any point in continuing this conversation. If you do still work in an office I hope it never happens to you.
I do work occasionally in an office and have personally walked the floor to make sure the AEDs are correctly located on our floor plans and electronic signage and filed facility tickets to get the maps updated. (They were originally not correct.)
I believe in the benefit of AEDs. I also believe the average number of lives saved per AED installed in an office is way, way less than 1.0, and almost surely lower than 0.001 which was the point of this sub-thread.
I wouldn't have bet any money on that. The dude was unwilling to pay £1100 for a life saving device what makes you think he would buy insurance that would pay upon employee death.
I know for a fact I didn't have any of that cover as my current company does pay death in service and it's like 4 times my yearly salary to my wife. So if he had anything like that he would have said so.
He's was just a cheap fuck. Companies often cheap out of safety gear to make a quick buck happens everywhere all the time.
That’s pretty scary having had one a few years ago I didn’t realise the risks of dying were so high. Is that for a specific case (e.g. heart stopped completely) or for all the stuff that gets lumped in there for example I was still walking around and so on despite the clot forming which probably has a more medical name but colloquially gets called the same thing.
For context when I had mine at 39 I was swimming so swam on for another thirty minutes at a reduced pace, got changed, walked home, lay down for a bit before getting my wife to drive me to the hospital. Ended up with a stent put in. Got lucky I guess from being reasonably fit as there was no visible damage to the heart on an ultrasound.
id be pretty interested to see the number of not that old male dying from heart attack since covid. not pointing the JAB (while it is one of the known side effects) but I think the big one is the confinment, forcing people to stay home, bringing a lack of exercise and mental fatigue would definitly put a toll on the heart. not even talking about the increased absorption of alcohol to fight depression from being isolated and not able to live like before.
We do know that in USA, republican males are dying faster then democrat males.
Also, there is no reason to imply that Kim Jung Gi had increased absorption of alcohol or was depressed last years. Especially since you are just speculating in order to push for political agenda.
what is my political agenda? you are the one talking about republican and democrats. I am merely stating that the past two years have been bad for young (before 50's) people health and the impact of the 2years of confinment, lack of physical activity, unemployment, closing of their business, mental stress hurt a lot of those young people. now add that yes the vaccines seemed to also cause myocarditis specifically in males it is a fact not a political agenda.
the past two years have been forcing young people to be confined, become mentally and physically unhealthy so that we can protect the old ones. its not a matter of days. the body builds up stress and organs accelerate their destruction when physical activity or mental health go down
KJG had Type 2 Diabetes for some time now, due to bad nutrition - he mentioned that he would excessively drink coke and eat junk food as he drew, and he drew a lot.
This isn't some widowmaker heart attack stuff that people are pushing here. He was in danger zone for awhile. Watching an interview with him would be monumentally insightful.
@dang why is this comment flagged - it's pretty important people know the underlying mortality cause here?
Given name. "First" and "last" name are ambiguous, since the order (and number of names) differs between cultures (and some people change the order when they go somewhere else).
Because they're already jumping to a biased conclusion by asking the question. Heart disease was a top killer before Covid existed. For all we know he ate poorly but still looked fit. Or had a genetic condition. So why even ask that question here?
Covid/vaccine related questions should best be left to topics concerning large scale studies, not a single tragic instance.
Because you're not going to get any answers of substance in this topic. A person died of a possible heart related condition. Why are there so many people asking if he was vaccinated? What does that have to do here? How come no one is asking if he oversalted his food every day? Frankly, vaccination questions in this topic are off-topic.
Well maybe because more and more people have some bad experience with vaccines. Question, that are not comfortable to answer for you, are not necessarily off-topic.
That is your conclusion. I just asked question. Which is, for you, automatically concluded. But you still gave me no answer for that question, which could be really considered as offtopic.
> Because they're already jumping to a biased conclusion by asking the question
You «jump[] to a biased conclusion» only when the conclusion is held - which you cannot conclude. The poster should keep it open: you should do the same. As you are mandated by the guidelines and the constraint against weak interpretations.
There is also zero reason to assume he was vaccinated while traveling through multiple foreign countries.
The vaccination status questions appear, because the theories about this being caused by covid vaccination flew over internet in anti vaccine circles. Just like every time famous person dies. The the whole political goal of these questions is to imply he was killed by vaccination while not needing to prove anything.
And it IS manipulative political question. We don't know his vaccination status nor when he was vaccinated. That happens to be private health information.
> while traveling through multiple foreign countries.
On the contrary, there are cases where people flying through multiple countries which have different approaches to health treatments have ended up taking multiple pharmaceutical interventions, one per nation-state sanctioned regime, where there have been zero clinical trials on that specific combination of treatments.
To be pro or anti "vaccine" is as meaningless as being pro or anti "software" or "chemical" or "food". Details matter. We are currently in the world's largest, unprecedented scientific experiment, and we are fortunate that the vast majority of participants have been healthy. Data from the outliers will be studied for decades to come and future generations will honor their sacrifice and contribution to science.
Before traveling, yes. During traveling, no it does not make much sense. Especially due to the way health insurance works - it will pay if you get sick but usually not for vaccinations etc.
> To be pro or anti "vaccine" is as meaningless as being pro or anti "software" or "chemical" or "food". Details matter.
We are specifically talking about covid-19 vaccines.
? We are currently in the world's largest, unprecedented scientific experiment, and we are fortunate that the vast majority of participants have been healthy.
You are lying. Practically, it is not experiment.
> Data from the outliers will be studied for decades to come and future generations will honor their sacrifice and contribution to science.
What does that have to do with whether trying to imply vaccines are responsible for Kim Jung Gi? Literally for no reason other then "I want it to and it would confirm my priors".
Study Type: Observational
Official Title: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 BNT162b2 Vaccine Effectiveness Study - Kaiser Permanente Southern California
Actual Study Start Date: May 15, 2021
Estimated Primary Completion Date: March 31, 2023
Estimated Study Completion Date: March 31, 2023
There being ongoing related studies does not mean the whole vaccination thing is experiment. The level of manipulativeness and appeals to emotions rather then logic are super high higher.
Also there are way more then just 11 vaccines all in all.
> ongoing related studies does not mean the whole vaccination thing is experiment
It means that the outcome of vaccine studies which complete in 2023, e.g. medium-term adverse effects, identification of specific risk pools, mitigations for adverse effects, will primarily benefit those who receive treatment after the studies complete in 2023.
Any beneficial information from a study completing in 2023 would self-evidently not be available in 2021 and 2022, i.e. science would have yielded new scientific knowledge. Participating in an ongoing scientific procedure with partial data is a risk-benefit decision, but that does not make it any less of an experiment, when there is ongoing, parallel research, clinical trials and scientists working diligently to answer open questions.
It is. Vaccine trials cannot be speed up. Human biology is not changeable as some sources trying to tell you. You need time to observe for example changes in fertility. walterbell gave you links for more info.
"Literally for no reason other then "I want it to and it would confirm my priors"."
Only for those who are healthy and suddenly die because of chest pain. Also when you know personaly people that are seriously ill or dead because of vaccines, than it is really hard to not ask questions.
"That happens to be private health information."
It was and it should be. But since our governments decided to make those information mandatory for for/entrance to various places/etc., it is not private anymore.
But you're jumping to conclusions he was healthy. Why? And then why the conversation asking if he was vaccinated? Why is no one asking about heart disease? Is it because vaccines have become political?
Yes. And he traveled through multiple countries and travelled a lot due to his work.
It is quite unlikely he got vaccination shortly before his hearth attack. He would have had to have it while traveling for it to be close enough rather then, more sensibly, him taking vaccine at home around time most people took one.
> Sudden death of someone who looked in perfect shape and was only 47 brings a lot of questions.
Not really. Dropping dead from a widowmaker in your 40s, while not common, is hardly unheard of. Could have been something else, too, like an aortic dissection. Nobody knows but his doctor and maybe his family. Speculating gets us nothing. We know how to lead healthy lives, should we choose. And accidents still happen.
Just in case for the someone who's genuinely curious about its possibility, it's very unlikely tied to vaccination since most of the blood clot/heart attack cases happen within several days after vaccination and these are already very rare. And we haven't observed any significant mid-term impacts as well. And I don't think Jung Gi had a recent vaccination since S. Korea's recent vaccination numbers are very low (a few thousand each day).
Heart damage resulting from vaccine-induced myocarditis can cause or contribute to heart attacks weeks, months, or years later, long after the acute symptoms of heart inflammation have seemingly resolved. And myocarditis isn't an on-off thing. The symptoms can be so severe and alarming that an individual will seek treatment immediately or mild enough that they ascribe them to a less serious issue (e.g. heartburn/indigestion) and "tough it out" without seeking care. Whether they get care or not, the acute symptoms may dissipate but permanent damage may have been done to their heart.
Under the unusual circumstances prevailing in many developed nations over the past couple of years, with the authorities and medical professions coercing entire populations into indiscriminately receiving experimental injections that have turned out to damage some low-covid-risk-persons' hearts, there is a generalized reluctance on the part of the same groups (government and medical bureaucracies) to acknowledge the damage their actions have inflicted. Your belief that vaccine-related fatalities are restricted to a period of a few days post-shot, is a result of the authorities' grudging admissions (and those only because the deaths are undeniable) rather than an accurate picture of what's going on.
Here's a link to a Danish study about the longer-term outlook for patients with acute myocarditis who were hospitalized, using pre-covid, pre-covid-shot data ("Long-term prognosis following hospitalization for acute myocarditis – a matched nationwide cohort study"): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14017431.2021.1...
From the abstract:
Prognosis in patients with apparently uncomplicated myocarditis is in general perceived as good, but data on long-term outcomes are sparse.
A bit further down...
Myocarditis in younger patients without prior cardiac disease was associated with a long-term excess risk of HF hospitalization, and death, even in patients free of events and HF medication 1 year after discharge.
Many nations are seeing a large increase in non-covid excess deaths of working-age persons and the magnitude of the effect seems to correlate with the uptake of mRNA and adenovirus-vector covid shots and boosters. It's hard to get to the bottom of what's going on now because the same people responsible for investigating this sort of thing have gone all-in on forcing shots onto people who mostly (non-elderly/non-direly-ill) aren't at risk of severe covid. Until the members of that cohort of experts and officials move on, retire, or are fired, I'm afraid that this will all continue to be either "baffling"/"mysterious" or falsely normalized.
Not sure where he first had chest pains, but the message says on the way to the airport. Whether they reached the airport, or in the car, but don't think on the plane.
Because it's a o e sided question.
Why not also question if he was infected by corona virus?
You know the virus that has a documented effect on the health of the heart.
And the moment both groups are pretty large, the vaccinated and the least once infected with corona but the virus is never a suspect in certain groups.
Blood clots, myocarditis etc. is only ever attributed to the vaccine and not the virus.
> Blood clots, myocarditis etc. is only ever attributed to
This class of statements, or rhetoric generalizations which cannot be read as a logical statement (where 'only ever' is strict), should be avoided. False universal statements add nothing to the style - they may easily detract -, they are gratuitous, they are offensive, and technically they clash with the requirement of respect which seems to be implicit in the guidelines.
I can reassure you: yes, some of us wondered of what could have been the chance that blood circulation affecting diseases may have impacted, and also of the chances of other factors, and also of the weakness of such estimations, and finally of the limited time these vague thoughts deserve.
"Why not also question if he was infected by corona virus?"
Sure, it is legit question. But for me personally not relevant, because I know more previously healthly people dead/serious ill because of vaccines and just one (obese) dead because of covid. I prefer to gather non-anonymous and non-generalized examples.
There is no reason questions seeking the truth should ever be censored/shunned. The truth is a lot of users here likely took it, and don't want to even consider the possibility of side effects. Its disappointing but easy to understand the human nature behind it.
Will you accept peer-reviewed papers by other authors?
There are multiple types of health risks associated with the experimental covid shots (billions of doses administered globally and often repeatedly to the same individuals before clinical trials have been completed doesn't make them less experimental, but it does raise the stakes of the experiment).
Here, I will consider a single known and admitted adverse effect of some of the covid shots, particularly the mRNA products: myocarditis.
A relatively small number of deaths have been grudgingly admitted, particularly among younger males who are at very low risk from covid itself but have been coerced into receiving these shots in order to attend school, university, participate in activities, or to obtain and retain employment. But we have been (falsely) assured by experts and authorities that myocarditis sufferers who don't actually die during the acute phase of their illness make a full recovery and suffer no lasting ill effects.
The only problem is that this is not true.
Long-term prospects of myocarditis sufferers are not well-characterized. And there's very, very little interest in studying the issue now, but here's a paper accepted by a journal just before covid went big globally: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14017431.2021.1...
From the abstract:
Myocarditis in younger patients without prior cardiac disease was associated with a long-term excess risk of HF hospitalization, and death, even in patients free of events and HF medication 1 year after discharge.
As we know, correlations between use of drugs like Vioxx and Chantix with, respectively, doubled risk of strokes and heart attacks and increased risk of cancer were enough to get them pulled from the market. But governments didn't relentlessly promote and coerce their citizens into taking Vioxx and Chantix en masse or waive liability for those products' manufacturers.
We're witnessing a large increase in non-covid excess deaths of young-to-middle-aged persons in countries with high covid shot uptake and the same experts who rammed those shots down everyone's throat, coordinated a censorship campaign to muffle anyone expressing legitimate concerns, hounded dissenting medical professionals and scientists out of their jobs, etc. is extremely baffled and thinks maybe it's related to climate change.
There are so many bizarre jumps in logic here it's actually impossible to address. All I can say is you need to speak to an actual (or better yet, several) epidemiologists about vaccine efficacy and the efficacy of the covid vaccines.
For anyone impressionable reading, I just want to point out:
> We're witnessing a large increase in non-covid excess deaths of young-to-middle-aged persons in countries with high covid shot uptake
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmqFbgKWoao
“When I decide what to draw, I think about what. And then I create another me in my mind. Another me, a.k.a. mini-me, will be travelling through the space of what I want to draw. … Now, I send a bunch of my mini-mes all over the space to find the best suited location for me to draw. Which perspective should I use? Where is the coolest angle or composition with the most impact?”