An official tally of suspected side effects resulting from Covid vaccination in Sweden has surpassed 30,000, with the majority of cases occurring in people inoculated with AstraZeneca's shot.

According to the Swedish Medical Products Agency, as of last week, the Scandinavian nation had received 31,844 reports of adverse reactions linked to the rollout of Covid-19 vaccines. Sweden is currently offering three variants of the drug. There are currently 2,103 reports of side effects from the Moderna shot, while the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has been associated with 9,117 health issues. But the number of suspected adverse reactions from the two shots seems relatively small when compared to the 19,961 reports linked to AstraZeneca's Vaxzevria.

The most common side effects for all three drugs were fever and headache. Other reported adverse reactions included nausea, joint pain, and dizziness.

That a high dosage of adenovirus in the bloodstream could lead to clotting, low levels of platelets and antibodies to platelets was known 20 years ago from animal studies in gene therapy.

Norwegian biologist Gro Amdam writes this in an email to ScienceNorway from the U.S., where she is professor at Arizona State University.

"Studies on animals showed this — in experiments on monkeys, rabbits and mice. The problem became an obstacle for research and development of gene therapy," Amdam writes.

The AstraZeneca vaccine against COVID uses a so-called adenoviral vector to deliver the vaccine in our bodies.

Several cases of unusual and serious cases of clotting combined with low levels of platelets and bleeding after the vaccine — four with a fatal outcome — caused Norway to pause the use of the AztraZenea vaccine on March 11.

Norwegian and German researchers recently explained what happened to these patients in a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine. They have given the syndrome the name VITT — Vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia.

The next big wave of COVID infections, already hitting states such as Michigan, will be dominated by people who have been fully vaccinated.

This was predicted by the authors of a scientific study published in a British medical journal.

Between 60 and 70 percent of "third wave" COVID deaths and hospitalizations will be from people who were fully vaccinated, according to the study, Summary of Further Modeling of Easing Restrictions, published March 31 by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

This may at least partially explain why Detroit-area hospitals are filling up with COVID patients.

But you won't read about this angle to the story from anyone in the mainstream media. They are reporting the story as simply a new wave of COVID hospitalizations and deaths caused by a UK-based variant of the virus that has nothing to do with the high rate of vaccinations. [See Detroit News, April 15, 2021, Beaumont nears COVID hospital capacity as experts warn of 'new pandemic.']

Mainstream news outlets have yet to express the tiniest bit of curiosity as to why the big spike in COVID is taking place even as large percentages of the public have been vaccinated [Michigan is one of the most-vaccinated states in the nation with nearly 30 percent of Michiganders receiving the jab]. In fact, health officials quoted in the above Detroit News article are blaming "vaccine hesitancy" for the new wave, a diabolical falsification of what's going on in Michigan meant to put more pressure on the people who refuse the unproven experimental injection.

Last week an opinion piece showed up on USA Today titled: "It's time to start shunning the 'vaccine hesitant'. They're blocking COVID herd immunity'. The article sparked the expected (and probably welcomed) amount of polarizing outrage on both sides of the issue on social media as the author goes into detail about how anyone choosing to forego the genetically engineered Covid shot should be treated as a second class citizen with multiple rights taken away.

What is revealing about the article is how far the mind of the Covid true believer has actually gone in hoovering up the propaganda and spitting it back out almost verbatim, complete with all the contradictory and nonsensical points in tact (like the fact that the shots are said to NOT confer immunity, only mitigate symptoms, yet the shots are needed for herd immunity to be achieved).

The Covid true believer needs to be able to ignore these contradictions in order to be able to maintain the belief that the authorities know what they're doing and have the best interests of the citizenry at heart. Yet to the critical mind, the entire narrative lacks any semblance of logic. It would be comical if the fate of the thinking individuals weren't being dictated by the Covid cult who are clearly unable to think.

Join us on this episode of Objective:Health as we take a truly terrifying trip through the mind of the Covid true believer.


For other health-related news and more, you can find us on:

♥Twitter: https://twitter.com/objecthealth
♥Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/objecthealth/
♥Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channel/objectivehealth
♥LBRY: https://lbry.tv/@objectivehealth:f
♥Odysee: https://odysee.com/@objectivehealth:f

And you can check out all of our previous shows (pre YouTube/LBRY) here:

♥https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16H-nK-N0ANdsA5JFTT12_HU5nUYRVS9YcQh331dG2MI/edit?usp=sharing

Running Time: 00:37:07

Download: MP3 — 34 MB

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned in a document published Friday of "repeatedly documented" instances of coronavirus spreading through the air to people more than 6 feet away under certain conditions.

The new document explaining the latest understanding of how the virus spreads is part of a shifting emphasis towards airborne transmission of the virus.

"Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from inhalation of virus in the air farther than six feet from an infectious source can occur," the new document says in large letters, while noting it is "less likely than at closer distances."

The risk of this kind of spread is highest indoors in places with "inadequate ventilation," when people are shouting or singing, or when people are exposed for long periods of time, the CDC said.

Back in January I wrote an article about four randomized controlled trials of ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19 that had at that time released their results to the public. Each of those four trials had promising results, but each was also too small individually to show any meaningful impact on the hard outcomes we really care about, like death. When I meta-analyzed them together however, the results suddenly appeared very impressive. Here's what that meta-analysis looked like:
It showed a massive 78% reduction in mortality in patients treated with covid-19. Mortality is the hardest of hard end points, which means it's the hardest for researchers to manipulate and therefore the least open to bias. Either someone's dead, or they're alive. End of story.

You would have thought that this strong overall signal of benefit in the midst of a pandemic would have mobilized the powers that be to arrange multiple large randomized trials to confirm these results as quickly as possible, and that the major medical journals would be falling over each other to be the first to publish these studies.

That hasn't happened.

Rather the opposite, in fact. South Africa has even gone so far as to ban doctors from using ivermectin on covid-19 patients. And as far as I can tell, most of the discussion about ivermectin in mainstream media (and in the medical press) has centred not around its relative merits, but more around how its proponents are clearly deluded tin foil hat wearing crazies who are using social media to manipulate the masses.

Study estimates the worldwide number of deaths from the virus could be as many as 7 million.

While coronavirus infections and deaths are falling across the country, one study claims that the actual number of deaths from the pandemic is 57% higher than the official count.

The study by researchers at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation was published on Thursday and said the actual number of coronavirus deaths in the United States could be as high as 900,000.

Contrary to established dogma, the spleen is not the principal source of the pro-inflammatory cytokine called tumor necrosis factor (TNF), which drives the sort of system-wide inflammation seen in sepsis. A paper in Science Signaling last week (April 20) reports that the liver and lungs of rats produce more TNF than the spleen does, but the spleen remains the master regulator, of the liver at least, instructing the nearby organ, via lipid signals, on how much TNF to make.

"This is a very interesting article reporting that the spleen enhances TNFα production in the liver. . . [and] showing the intermodulation between organs and the complex mechanisms of physiologic interplay," Duke University's Luis Ulloa, who studies immunobiology and was not involved in the paper, writes in an email to The Scientist.

Abstract: COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have been exempted from legal liability for vaccine-induced harm. It is therefore in the interests of all those authorising, enforcing and administering COVID-19 vaccinations to understand the evidence regarding the risks and benefits of these vaccines, since liability for harm will fall on them.

In short, the available evidence and science indicate that COVID-19 vaccines are unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe.

• Necessity: Immunocompetent individuals are protected against SARS-CoV-2 by cellular immunity. Vaccinating low-risk groups is therefore unnecessary. For immunocompromised individuals who do fall ill with COVID-19 there is a range of medical treatments that have been proven safe and effective. Vaccinating the vulnerable is therefore equally unnecessary. Both immunocompetent and vulnerable groups are better protected against variants of SARS-CoV-2 by naturally acquired immunity and by medication than by vaccination.
• Efficacy: Covid-19 vaccines lack a viable mechanism of action against SARS-CoV-2 infection of the airways. Induction of antibodies cannot prevent infection by an agent such as SARS-CoV-2 that invades through the respiratory tract. Moreover, none of the vaccine trials have provided any evidence that vaccination prevents transmission of the infection by vaccinated individuals; urging vaccination to "protect others" therefore has no basis in fact.
• Safety: The vaccines are dangerous to both healthy individuals and those with pre-existing chronic disease, for reasons such as the following: risk of lethal and non-lethal disruptions of blood clotting including bleeding disorders, thrombosis in the brain, stroke and heart attack; autoimmune and allergic reactions; antibody-dependent enhancement of disease; and vaccine impurities due to rushed manufacturing and unregulated production standards.

The risk-benefit calculus is therefore clear: the experimental vaccines are needless, ineffective and dangerous. Actors authorising, coercing or administering experimental COVID-19 vaccination are exposing populations and patients to serious, unnecessary, and unjustified medical risks.

"The risk-benefit calculus is therefore clear: the experimental vaccines are needless, ineffective and dangerous. Actors authorizing, coercing or administering experimental COVID-19 vaccination are exposing populations and patients to serious, unnecessary, and unjustified medical risks." Doctors for Covid Ethics, April 29, 2021

An explosive new study by researchers at the prestigious Salk Institute casts doubt on the current crop of gene-based vaccines that may pose a grave risk to public health. The article, which is titled "The novel coronavirus' spike protein plays additional key role in illness", shows that SARS-CoV-2's "distinctive 'spike' protein".."damages cells, confirming COVID-19 as a primarily vascular disease." While the paper focuses strictly on Covid-related issues, it unavoidably raises questions about the new vaccines that contain billions of spike proteins that could greatly increase the chances of severe illness or death. Here's an excerpt from the article dated April 30, 2021:

"In the new study, the researchers created a "pseudovirus" that was surrounded by SARS-CoV-2 classic crown of spike proteins, but did not contain any actual virus. Exposure to this pseudovirus resulted in damage to the lungs and arteries of an animal model — proving that the spike protein alone was enough to cause disease. Tissue samples showed inflammation in endothelial cells lining the pulmonary artery walls. (Note- "Vascular endothelial cells line the entire circulatory system, from the heart to the smallest capillaries.")

The team then replicated this process in the lab, exposing healthy endothelial cells (which line arteries) to the spike protein. They showed that the spike protein damaged the cells by binding ACE2. This binding disrupted ACE2's molecular signaling to mitochondria (organelles that generate energy for cells), causing the mitochondria to become damaged and fragmented.

Previous studies have shown a similar effect when cells were exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own." ("The novel coronavirus' spike protein plays additional key role in illness", Salk.edu)