People Died at Rates 20% Higher Than Normal After Second COVID Shot, Swedish Study Shows
According to a 34-page preprint paper on vaccine effectiveness, published in The Lancet, 3,939 of 4.03 million Swedes who received the second dose of a COVID vaccine died less than two weeks later.
Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender’s Top News of the Day. It’s free.
But on page 32 of the 34-page report, a chart shows that 3,939 of 4.03 million Swedes who received the second dose died less than two weeks later.
Over a one-year period, that rate of death would translate into an annual mortality rate of about 2.5% a year — 1 person in 40 — almost THREE times the overall Swedish average. In a typical year, about 1 in 115 Swedes dies.
Of course, that huge gap does not account for an important confounding factor: younger people, who have a much lower risk of death, were less likely to be vaccinated.
But Sweden also provides detailed data on overall deaths nationally, making a crude baseline comparison possible.
That data shows that from an average of about 1,650 Swedes died every week between 2015 and 2019 between April 1 and early August, the period in which almost all of those 4 million Swedes in the study received their second dose. Death rates hardly varied over those years.
In other words, during the spring and summer, Sweden normally has about 3,300 deaths every two weeks — not just in the people who received vaccines, but in all 10.6 million of its people.
So let’s make an incredibly conservative assumption, one that strongly favors the vaccines. (The next couple of paragraphs are a bit tricky, but I hope the payoff is worth taking the time to read and think through them.)
Assume that the group of people who received vaccines were so much older and unhealthier than those who didn’t that they would have accounted for every single death in Sweden whether or not they were vaccinated. In other words, assume that even if the vaccines did not exist, every person in Sweden who died would have been part of that group of 4.03 million people the researchers tracked — while not one other person would have died.
In that case, those 4.03 million people “should” have about 3,300 deaths every two weeks. They CANNOT HAVE MORE — because all of Sweden does not have more.
But the vaccines do exist. Those 4.03 million people received them. And in the two weeks after receiving the second vaccine dose, as a group, the researchers reported they had not about 3,300 deaths, but 3,939.
And 3,939 deaths is about 20% more deaths than “should” have occurred in those two post-vaccine weeks. Again, the 20% figure understates the real gap, because in the real world, some deaths will occur in the 6.6 million unvaccinated people too, so the actual baseline number for the vaccinated group is not 3,300 deaths but somewhat lower.
Unfortunately, the researchers did not report any details on the deaths, so it is impossible to know if they are disproportionately cardiovascular.
It is also impossible to know whether one particular vaccine was disproportionately linked to deaths. (Sweden used mostly the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, as well as some of AstraZeneca’s DNA/AAV vaccine, which is not available in the U.S., and a small amount of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine.)
Of course, it is just possible the extra deaths are due to chance.
Or that the handful of elderly Swedes who received vaccines in February and March accounted for a hugely disproportionate number of the post-vaccine deaths. (Because per-week Swedish death rates are higher in the winter, a large number of post-vaccine deaths in those months would somewhat reduce the strength of the signal, though it would still exist.)
But the caveats aside, the Swedish figures offer a very large real-world dataset apparently showing a notable increase in all-cause mortality directly following COVID vaccination.
They is yet another piece of evidence in an increasingly worrying picture — alongside case and anecdotal reports, a known link to heart inflammation in young men, the updated Pfizer clinical trial data revealing a numerical imbalance in deaths in vaccinated people and, most importantly, the general rise in all-cause mortality in many countries.
And all of these red flags come for vaccines that — if the Swedish data are correct — may actually raise the risk of COVID infection after about eight months.
See how that black line drops below the zero level on the top chart? That represents negative effectiveness, which is another way to say people who are vaccinated are MORE likely to be infected than those who aren’t.
And, as the second chart shows, effectiveness against severe COVID infection is also spiraling towards zero.
Yet the Biden Administration and governments across Europe continue to try to force more people to take these vaccines.
Originally published at Unreported Truths by Alex Berenson.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.