“Remedial take”? You’re mocking people’s IQs while demonstrating that you haven’t even bothered to read the original Swedish procurement documents. And the irony of your “room temperature IQ” insult is particularly hilarious, considering REFRIGERATED SHELF LIFE was one of the actual evaluation criteria you apparently missed. Your reply is yet another perfect example of how anti-vaxxers respond when their misleading disinformation gets exposed. You claim Sweden is “not hiding their reasons,” yet the reasons you’re presenting DO NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE in Sweden’s official announcements. The actual procurement documents explicitly identify the evaluation criteria: PRICE and QUALITY, with refrigerated shelf life as the quality criterion. Absolutely nothing about rejecting mRNA technology because of autoimmune disease, uncontrollable spike proteins, or vaccine deaths. ALL of that bullshit comes from the Dutch anti-vaccine website you linked, which wrapped a legitimate procurement decision in its own propaganda. And here’s what makes your narrative even more ridiculous: Sweden’s official procurement system STILL lists Pfizer and Moderna as qualified suppliers for future COVID vaccine contracts. It remains open to mRNA vaccines. Sweden awarded a specific contract to one supplier. You have provided no evidence of a separate decision to withdraw public funding from mRNA vaccines, much less any official finding that they’re unsafe. You could have checked the original Swedish documents. Instead, you’re spreading an anti-vaccine website’s invented explanation as though it came from Swedish authorities. Apparently, anti-vaxxers have to keep inventing reasons for things to happen in order to keep their narrative alive. The truth was readily available. You chose to share the bullshit. And one last thing about your “IQ north of room temperature” remark: It’s about 70°F in my room, so I suppose an IQ of 75 qualifies. Given the quality of your argument, that’s probably accurate. But it’s hardly something you should be boasting about 🤣

This is exactly how anti-vaxxers manufacture misinformation. They take one tiny grain of truth, wrap it in an enormous wad of complete bullshit, and inject it straight into the veins of a conspiracy-addicted audience hungry for anything that confirms their beliefs. Here’s the grain of truth: Sweden awarded its 2027-2028 COVID vaccine contract to a protein-based vaccine, instead of the mRNA vaccine it’s primarily using for the current and prior seasons. Now here’s the bullshit: The claim that Sweden is abandoning mRNA technology because of autoimmune reactions, uncontrolled spike protein production, serious adverse effects, and deaths. What none of these anti-vaxxers will bother to read are the actual Swedish announcements and procurement documents. They say NOTHING of the sort. ALL of the bullshit you see on screen comes from the Dutch anti-vaccine website that took one legitimate fact, wrapped it in its own anti-mRNA propaganda, and packaged it for an audience of science deniers eager to swallow it whole. So what did Sweden actually do? It conducted a competitive procurement process that evaluated vaccines based on price and quality, specifically refrigerated shelf life. Those are the documented evaluation criteria, with absolutely no finding that mRNA vaccines were dangerous or responsible for the medical disasters alleged in this article. And here’s the particularly revealing part: Sweden’s official procurement system STILL lists Pfizer and Moderna as qualified suppliers for future COVID vaccine contracts. Sweden is also using Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine for its current vaccination campaign. So where exactly did the claims about autoimmune disease, uncontrollable spike proteins, and widespread vaccine injuries come from? The anti-vaccine website. Not Sweden. And that’s how this misinformation machine works. Start with a fact. Bury it under a mountain of bullshit. Present the whole package as an official revelation. Then watch thousands of people share it without ever checking what the original source actually said. They don’t need the story to be true. They just need their audience to believe it.