In 23.1 million residents across 4 Nordic countries, risk of myocarditis after the first & second doses of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines was highest in young males aged 16 to 24 years after the second dose
How can they still recommend weighing the risks vs. benefits? The recommendation should be not to vaccinate! True informed consent risk will always be overshadowed by phony profiteering benefit.
They are still saying that the benefits of these injections of the experimental gene altering lethal/maiming ‘shit’ outweighs the risks, they are promoting the injections. Wonder why? Just have a look at the conflicts of interest and also, the Swedish corresponding author Richard Ljung works at The Swedish Medical Products Agency or Läkemedelsverket in Swedish, which is equal to FDA. And this agency is as compromised as FDA.
Pretty convinced that this is not the whole truth but the numbers are downplayed to make the study look better. They have had huge problems with the reporting on AEs as it is the regions in Sweden (there are 21) that have responsibility for that and the reporting is lagging and not all events are reported. How it plays out in Denmark, Norway and Finland I do not know but kind of assuming that they are experiencing the same bias with their Medical Products Agencies.
And remember when you are on the other side, meaning questioning the narrative your study will not be accepted for publication. But this one was in quite a short time. Do you recall the story with McCullough’s and Jessica Rose’s paper on myocarditis they reported on from VAERS that was approved but then retracted by Elsevier. Have not heard if that one is published yet.
And also, if it was accepted for publication in February why did it take two months to show up online? Were they afraid that people would actually read it? When I tried now it was problematic accessing the site due to large traffic.
What also came to mind was Prof Ioannidis and his findings of scientific research in 2005 and the validity of research.
How can they still recommend weighing the risks vs. benefits? The recommendation should be not to vaccinate! True informed consent risk will always be overshadowed by phony profiteering benefit.
what are the benefits of the vaccine in that age group? I guess they are not even measuarble
Any odds are too high seeing that ppl this age have virtually no risk of contracting the virus.
They are still saying that the benefits of these injections of the experimental gene altering lethal/maiming ‘shit’ outweighs the risks, they are promoting the injections. Wonder why? Just have a look at the conflicts of interest and also, the Swedish corresponding author Richard Ljung works at The Swedish Medical Products Agency or Läkemedelsverket in Swedish, which is equal to FDA. And this agency is as compromised as FDA.
Pretty convinced that this is not the whole truth but the numbers are downplayed to make the study look better. They have had huge problems with the reporting on AEs as it is the regions in Sweden (there are 21) that have responsibility for that and the reporting is lagging and not all events are reported. How it plays out in Denmark, Norway and Finland I do not know but kind of assuming that they are experiencing the same bias with their Medical Products Agencies.
And remember when you are on the other side, meaning questioning the narrative your study will not be accepted for publication. But this one was in quite a short time. Do you recall the story with McCullough’s and Jessica Rose’s paper on myocarditis they reported on from VAERS that was approved but then retracted by Elsevier. Have not heard if that one is published yet.
And also, if it was accepted for publication in February why did it take two months to show up online? Were they afraid that people would actually read it? When I tried now it was problematic accessing the site due to large traffic.
What also came to mind was Prof Ioannidis and his findings of scientific research in 2005 and the validity of research.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124