Connect with us


Destroying Western Media’s “Swedish Public Health Disaster” Narrative In Two Simple Charts

Destroying Western Media’s "Swedish Public Health Disaster" Narrative In Two Simple Charts



Destroying Western Media's "Swedish Public Health Disaster" Narrative In Two Simple Charts Tyler Durden Wed, 08/05/2020 - 05:00

Via SKWealthAcademy,

"In order to control public opinion of the masses, the ruling class should “regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments [soldiers’] bodies."

– Edward Bernays, Propaganda (1928)

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

– Edward Bernays, Propaganda (1928)

Recently, the Western media has made a point to publish a plethora of stories about the public health disaster of Sweden’s no lockdown policy in order to deliberately discredit, in the minds of most people, the only science-based approach to covid19 undertaken by any nation in the world.

Since the end of July, there have been a lot of completely false and misleading stories about the failures of Sweden’s no lockdown policy and Sweden officials’ choices to not tyrannically shut down businesses in Sweden, to only suggest that the elderly vulnerable population self-quarantine, and to allow for the complete normalization of life under the conditions. Of course, the criticisms of portraying life as completely normal in Sweden had some merit. The most normalized behavior occurred in Stockholm, and though no businesses were ordered to close, some more cautious, conservative business owners chose to shut down their cinemas and ski resorts chose to voluntarily close and GDP in Sweden is still forecast to shrink by 4%. Still a 4% annual shrinkage in GDP is 1000 times more preferable to the annual pace of a 32.9% drop in GDP forecast in America just this past quarter.

Furthermore, if the most human interaction is happening in Stockholm, the most densely populated city in Sweden with a central population of 1.5M and a metropolitan population of over 2.4M, then this fact would serve as stronger proof, not weaker proof, that their no-lockdown, normal life behavior approach was a resounding success. This logical, science-based and humanitarian approach starkly contrasted with the totalitarian, misanthropic ruling class’s approach to restrict the movements of everyone, including fully-abled healthy people with strong immune systems, and legislating mandated stay-at-home orders for large swaths of entire nations, orders which the United Nations claim may bring 260 million people to the verge of starvation by year’s end, which would make the State leaders responsible for an outcome, if it happens, guilty of genocide on a scale that would make Hitler, Mao, and Mussolini’s repugnant genocidal feats appear as child’s play.

In fact, in response to my legitimate claims that Sweden’s no-lockdown response was the only science-based response to covid 19 in the entire world, and also, non-coincidentally, the most successful response, I heard many Westerners attempt to rebut my arguments with counterclaims that were not the result of any research or intellect, but the consequence of obedient parroting of Western media headlines, that on the surface, seemed to dispute the science I had presented.  

In response to Sweden’s massive success rates with its no lockdown policy, the only State that dared stand up to the global banking cartel that was likely behind the global economic lockdown policy, the Western mass media deployed a pre-emptive counterstrike by literally releasing hundreds of articles about the grave “failure” of Sweden’s no lockdown policy and disseminating these articles to millions of websites online. So even though I debunked their false claims already in this article, since social media has reduced everyone’s attention span to small chunks of a few seconds at a time, with the exception of a handful for every million, I’ve created a couple of charts, drawing data from the sites of the US Centers for Disease Control and Folkhälsomyndigheten, the Public Health Agency of Sweden, to address this problem whereby the false Western mass media narrative about Sweden’s virus response will be destroyed in a glance.

In the top chart, when we compare the mortality rates of covid19 in Sweden v. the US, including all data until the end of July, the US’s mortality rate of covid 19 in the age group of less than 39 years of age was 0.58%, more than 1,230 times greater than the 0.00047% mortality rate of Sweden. Furthermore, in the age demographics of 40-59 and 59-69, the death rate in the US from covid19 versus Sweden was respectively 215 times and 211 times greater than Sweden.

In the bottom chart, I compared Sweden’s mortality rate for different age demographics compared to the US mortality rate for the common flu. For the comprehensive age group of all ages less than 60 years of age, the Swedish mortality rate of covid19 is less than 1/3rd of the American mortality rate for the common flu. Clearly, as can be easily observed in the bottom chart, the overall covid19 mortality rate for Sweden’s population was greatly skewed by nearly all covid19 deaths occurring in the above 70 year old demographic, with the majority of Sweden’s covid19 deaths occurring in those older than 80 and 90 years of age!

I created the above graphics, using official date of both the US Centers for Disease Control and and Folkhälsomyndigheten, the Public Health Agency of Sweden. The major disclaimer I have about the graphics I created is that the US lockdown response to covid19 that is hundreds to thousands times worse in result versus Sweden’s no lockdown, free and open society response is likely skewed a little higher than reality. This bias originates from the inaccurate reporting of covid deaths in America, as already four states, Washington, New York, Texas and Colorado, have admitted to many cases of falsely categorizing non-covid19 deaths, including even deaths from fatal transportation crashes and murders, as covid19 deaths. However, it is not my fault that US health agencies have reported wildly inflated covid19 deaths that make their management of the virus appear pathetic in comparison to Sweden’s chosen strategies of continuing to operate their nation as if covid19 was less dangerous than the common flu for healthy, working-age people, which their statistics have thus far validated. Secondly, the only other factor that introduces some slight margins of error in the above graphics is the fact that the data available for mortality rates among different demographics do not exactly match the population data also provided for these demographic groups to determine mortality rates. Thus I was required to make some extrapolations with the data to determine mortality rates of covid19 for the Swedish age demographics.

For example, the population data I used for the Swedish population split the demographic data into age brackets of 45-55, 55-65,and so on, that slightly differed from the age brackets of 40-49, 50-59, 60-69 and so on provided by the Public Health Agency of Sweden for the number of deaths from covid19. Therefore to determine the mortality rates for covid19 and the common flu, I was required to extrapolate the population data for age categories to match the age categories for the data provided regarding number of deaths. The methodology I used to estimate the Swedish population to arrive at mortality rates for each age group was a direct linear extrapolation.

For example, Sweden reported 1.282M citizens between the ages of 35 and 44, an age group of 10 years. Consequently, to estimate how many citizens were among those aged 35 to 39, I merely divided the number of the total citizens for that age group of 1.282M citizens in half to arrive at 641,000 citizens and then added this figure to the 4.448M Swedes that are 34 years of age or younger to arrive at a total population of 5.1M Swedes for the demographic of 0-39 years of age for my mortality rate calculations. Of course, if the number of 1.282M citizens is more heavily skewed in favor of the 35 to 39 year old group than the 40 to 44 year old group, than my total population of 0-39 years of age will yield a slightly higher mortality rate than reality. However, since all census data is based upon estimates from sampling a much smaller portion of the population, I assume that my own estimates of portions of the demographic categories to yield my mortality rates that were based on simple mathematical extrapolations should not introduce any significant margins of error that will distort the true message and reality contained within my two charts.

Despite this overwhelming scientific evidence of the Swedish approach as the most effective combined dual health and economic-based approach in the entire world, I was amazed at the volume of Western media lies and propaganda about Sweden’s approach being a horrific failure.

Western media in the US and the UK were all too eager to oblige in spreading complete lies and fabricated garbage by painting Sweden’s massive success as a complete failure by printing headlines that blared,

Sweden has nearly 10 times the number of COVID-19-related deaths than its Nordic neighbors”,  

“Sweden's coronavirus death rate is nearly 6 times that of neighboring Norway and Finland”, 

“A Very Swedish Sort of Failure”,  and

“Sweden’s Coronavirus Experiment Has Well and Truly Failed.”

And just in case you’re not the type to watch the nightly news, the Western media flooded the internet with the same false narrative to ensure that everyone that heard about these stories and consequently searched for additional stories about Sweden’s no lockdown policy would receive plenty of confirmation about these false narratives.

The mission of these fake, non-science and non-mathematical based stories was to ensure that the maximum amount of people around the world remain completely unthinking, obedient slaves to State mandated, martial-law style lockdowns and stay-at-home orders, in which the consequent social isolation from others would not only produce devastating  financial and  psychological effects but also have the added bonus, for the ruling class, of producing a mental state among the global population extremely receptive to hate and fear.  Yesterday, I conducted a search on the Google Search engine for “the failure of Sweden’s coronavirus response”, and Google, as an apparatus of the parasitic ruling class, returned 52M results for this topic. 

And though a search for “the success of Swedens’ coronavirus response” returned 63.9M results, and one may see the results and perhaps think that for the first time in history, the Google search engine did not have an agenda in its search results, a quick glance at the titles of the articles on the entire first page quickly dispel such faith. The first articles for this search were titled,

“Has Sweden’s Controversial Covid19 Strategy Been Successful?”,

“Dramatic Drop in Deaths Doesn’t Mean Plan Worked”,

“Misinformation and De-Contextualization”, “Sweden’s Prime Minister Rejects Criticism”, and

“A Warning from Sweden’s Coronavirus Response”.

Although a few of these articles appear that they may focus on the positive aspects of Sweden’s response, they did not. Every single article focused on the slightly negative outcomes of their response, and completely ignored their much more heavily positive outcomes, whereby the results of this “positive” search were nearly indistinguishable from the results of the “negative” search about Sweden’s covid19 response.

In any event, the hypocritical Western media that blasted Sweden’s response as a complete failure for having six times the mortality rate of its neighbors in Finland and Norway, these faux journalists should have turned their propaganda lens inward to within domestic borders and blasted a covid19 death rate in the US in the under 40 year old population that was more than 1,230 times that of Sweden. If Sweden’s response was a disaster, how would you categorize a response that was worse by a factor of more than twelve-hundred times? A complete apocalypse? And why was this rate so much higher in the US than in Sweden? As I already stated,  it was so much higher because nearly no one died in Sweden who was under the age of 60 from this virus, so printing a headline that US deaths in the under 40 category were “apocalyptic” when compared to Sweden, though it would never happen in a million years, would still be a headline upon which I would heavily frown, as publishing such a headline would obviously only be done with the to deceive. Even though the data of mortality rates for the under 40-year old category would qualify as a comparison of apples to apples, in some instances, comparing apples to apples does not mean that such a comparison would not be deceitful.  Quoting statistics should not be used when one knows that their use will paint biased, misleading views of the actual situation, yet the mass media repeatedly engages in such deception with no qualms about doing so.

Likewise, the reason Sweden possessed a covid19 death rate six times higher than Finland and Norway was because

(1) Sweden’s elderly population was much greater than the elderly population  of either of those two nations; and

(2) As small as was Sweden’s mortality rates were for all age groups except the elderly, Finland and Norway’s mortality rates were even more minute.

Consequently, compare minute to minute statistics, a 6 times higher mortality rate is very easy to manufacture and can be extremely misleading.  For example if one country reports six deaths out of 100,000 and another country reports 36 deaths out of 100,000 and both nations have populations under 10 million people, reporting a mortality rate six times higher in the former nation versus the latter nation is truly misleading. Now if both nations had populations over 150M people and this were still the case, then it would be okay to report such a statistic as there would be much more truth in such a stat.

As is evident in the bottom chart, the bulk of deaths from coronavirus in Sweden happened in the over 70 year old demographic, but particularly in the over 80 year old category. If a nation has many more elderly citizens, percentage wise than another nation, then of course its overall mortality rate will be much higher, as its overall mortality rate will be greatly skewed by its large elderly population. This is why it would be fake science to extrapolate the high mortality rate of covid19 in Lombardy, a region with a high percentage of elderly, to the entire nation of Italy.

All of the Western media’s headlines about this particular set of data in Sweden in comparison to its neighboring nations was completely disingenuous and deliberately intended to mislead the American public about the “failure” of the Sweden no lockdown policy, that in reality, was among the most successful, if not the most successful, in the entire world. If you compared the mortality rate of Sweden to another Nation A in which only 5% of Nation’s A population was over 70 years of age with 90% of its population under 60, and then published headlines, “Sweden’s Covid19 Death Rate 3,000 Times Greater than Nation A”, you would not be a journalist interested in spreading truth but a spineless coward whose printed propaganda would be directly responsible for the extension of lockdowns that would likely cause many unnecessary deaths.

In the end, I’m astonished at how many people readily parrot the complete garbage implications contained within some of the misleading headlines I’ve stated above that appeared in Western media about Sweden’s virus response “failure” with not even a single minute of consideration if the headlines were really true or not.

In Edward Bernay’s 1925 book, Crystallizing Public Opinion, the person whom many consider as the father of US propaganda, stated,

“People accept the facts which come to them through existing channels. They like to hear new things in accustomed ways. They have neither the time nor the inclination to search for facts that are not readily available to them. The expert, therefore, must advise first upon the form of action desirable for his client and secondly must utilize the established mediums of communication, in order to present to the public a point of view. This is true whether it is that of a majority or minority, old or new personality, institution or group which desires to change by modification or intensification the store of knowledge and the opinion of the public.”

The most effective propaganda, which certainly the propaganda about this virus used to justify State leader mandates to lockdown economies around the world fall under, convinces the victims of the propaganda that they came to the conclusions contained within the propaganda on their own merit, and that they were not ordered to embrace such false beliefs. Bernays stated in 1925 that for propaganda to be effective, it has to fall under the category of information for which the public has “neither the time nor the inclination to search for facts” because the facts “are not readily available.” Quite sadly, this once staunch pillar of disseminating effective propaganda is not even necessary today given the century of brainwashing and dumbing down of society that has taken place since 1925. The data I complied above that would easily disprove all the lies in thousands of articles circulating around the world about the failure of Sweden’s no lockdown approach was readily available on the public website of Folkhälsomyndigheten, the Public Health Agency of Sweden. But today, most people do not want to spend even two minutes of time to vet information as wrong or true when the information to do so is readily available. Instead, society at large still prefers to have the parasitic ruling class think for them and tell them what to believe.

For this reason, I devoted an entire course in my skwealthacademy curriculum just to the development of critical think skills, and I will launch my course as soon as the parasitic world leaders life the global lockdown, of which I’ve been subjected for 134 days and counting, and allow me to return home. Of course, if you made it to the end of this article, you are not among that group, but that also makes you a rarity in today’s world.

*  *  *

To be informed off the release of this content, subscribe to my podcast channel here. Subscribe to my news site and free newsletter here. All skwealthacademy articles are always published first on my news site.

Support my news site by becoming a patreon by visiting this link.

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Oil Prices Surge Past $113 As Shanghai Signals End Of Lockdown

Oil Prices Surge Past $113 As Shanghai Signals End Of Lockdown

By Charles Kennedy of,

Oil prices have topped $113 per barrel…



Oil Prices Surge Past $113 As Shanghai Signals End Of Lockdown

By Charles Kennedy of,

Oil prices have topped $113 per barrel on optimism that China’s lockdowns are coming to an end and demand will not take a prolonged hit. 

In early afternoon markets Monday, news that Shanghai was seeing a strong recovery from COVID cases, with plans in place to ease lockdown restrictions beginning this week, outweighed a litany of bearish news for oil. 

Brent was at $113.97 per barrel on 3:20 pm EST, while WTI was trading at $113.77.

WTI neared $115...

Authorities in Shanghai on Monday said restrictions would finally ease, in stages, after nearly six weeks of lockdowns that have shaken the Chinese economy and disrupted global supply chains.

On 1 June, Shanghai is scheduled to see lockdowns end, with a gradual easing beginning on May 21st. 

“From June 1 to mid- and late June, as long as risks of a rebound in infections are controlled, we will fully implement epidemic prevention and control, normalise management and fully restore normal production and life in the city,” the Guardian quoted deputy mayor Zong Ming as saying Monday. 

The announcement comes shortly after downward pressure was put on oil prices over new releases of weak Chinese economic data and signals that the European Union’s plans to ban Russian oil had faltered.

On Monday, China published official economic data, showing a significant slowdown, with industrial output falling by nearly 3% year-on-year in April, and retail sales down by around 11%. Shanghai’s port volumes were also down by 40%, according to DW.  

All of this has led to a decline in demand for oil coming out of China. 

However, according to new data from the Saudi Arabia-based Joint Organizations Data Initiative (JODI), global oil demand surpassed pre-pandemic levels in March, at 101%, despite declines in Chinese demand. However, the report noted that crude oil production was at 97% of pre-COVID levels. The data is based on submissions that account for 70% of global oil demand and 55% of global crude production. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/16/2022 - 17:05

Read More

Continue Reading


Did Fauci Just Convince Swing-Voters To Pull For Trump?

Did Fauci Just Convince Swing-Voters To Pull For Trump?

81-year-old Dr. Anthony Fauci issued a stunning and brave proclamation on Sunday;…



Did Fauci Just Convince Swing-Voters To Pull For Trump?

81-year-old Dr. Anthony Fauci issued a stunning and brave proclamation on Sunday; if former President Trump is elected president again in 2024, he's out.

"If you look at the history of what the response was during the administration, I think, you know, at best, you can say it wasn’t optimal," Fauci told CNN's Jim Acosta, adding "History will speak for itself about that."

Fauci, who as the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease funded dangerous "gain-of-function" research on coronaviruses and then lied about it while under oath, is the US government's top official in charge of the pandemic response.

Trump and Fauci had frequent public disagreements over various health policies during the initial months of the pandemic - with Fauci pushing for masks and lockdowns (after initially saying masks don't work), and Trump pushing for a Sweden-esque hands-off approach to mitigation.

And while Fauci may now insist that he wouldn't continue in his role (when he'd be 84-years-old), he may not be in a position to accept the job of Sen. Rand Paul is able to follow through on a vow to bring the 'top doc' to justice if the GOP retakes the Senate during this year's midterm elections.



Tyler Durden Mon, 05/16/2022 - 17:25

Read More

Continue Reading


What Is Quantitative Tightening? How Does It Work?

What Is Quantitative Tightening?The main job of a central bank, like the Federal Reserve, is to keep the economy strong through maximum employment and…



Quantitative tightening is not the opposite of quantitative easing—they are distinctly different activities.

Ballun from Getty Images Signature; Canva

What Is Quantitative Tightening?

The main job of a central bank, like the Federal Reserve, is to keep the economy strong through maximum employment and stable prices. It does this by managing the Fed Funds Rate, which it sets at its Federal Open Market Committee meetings. This effectively raises or lowers the interest rates that banks offer companies and consumers for things like mortgages, student loans, and credit cards.

But when the economy needs help and interest rates are already low, the Fed must turn to other tools in its arsenal. This includes practices like quantitative easing and quantitative tightening; the former expands the shares of Treasury bonds, mortgage-backed securities, and even stocks on the government’s balance sheets, while the latter tightens the monetary supply. Both have a profound effect on liquidity in the financial markets.

The Fed came to the rescue with trillions of dollar’s worth of quantitative easing at the end of the 2007–2008 Financial Crisis, and again during the global Coronavirus pandemic.

But the Fed can’t go on printing money forever. Whenever it employs quantitative easing, the Fed must eventually turn to its counterpart, which is known as quantitative tightening, in order to limit some of the negative outcomes of the former, such as inflation.

How Does Quantitative Tightening Work? What Is an Example of Quantitative Tightening?

Through quantitative tightening, the Federal Reserve reduces its supply of monetary reserves in order to tighten its balance sheet—and it does so simply by letting the bonds and other securities it has purchased reach maturity. When this happens, the Treasury department removes them from its cash balances, and thus the money it has “created” effectively disappears.

Does the Fed know exactly when to ease the gas pedal on quantitative easing? According to the Fed, timing is everything. Remember how the Fed’s main job is to create a strong economy through stable prices and high employment? As it carefully monitors the effects interest rates are having on the economy, it also keeps a close eye on the overall measure of inflation. It’s both a constant battle and a juggle. 

Take the period following the Financial Crisis as an example. The 2007–2008 crisis stemmed in large part from the implosion of collateralized debt obligations, and so the Fed kept the Fed Funds Rate at virtually 0% for almost a decade in order to spur growth and maintain stable rates of employment.

During this period, it also undertook a series of quantitative easing measures, watching its balance sheet balloon from $870 billion in August 2007 to $4.5 trillion in September 2017.

The FRED graph below illustrates how the Fed Funds rate, in blue, remained at nearly zero for the period while the total size of the Fed’s balance sheet, in red, grew. The shaded areas indicate recession.

Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Effective Federal Funds Rate [EFFR], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis;, May 16, 2022.

The Fed believed that as soon as employment became stable, it needed to turn its attention to meeting its 2% inflation target, which it accomplished by raising interest rates. And so, in October 2015, it began gradually increasing the Fed Funds Rate in 25 basis point increments. Over the next several years, rates went up from 0.0%–0.25% levels to 2.25%–2.5% in 2018. This course of action, in the Fed’s words, was known as liftoff.

After raising rates a few times with no disastrous consequences, in 2017 the Fed next embarked on an effort to reduce its balance sheet through quantitative tightening. This was also known as unwinding its balance sheet, because it was taking action in a slow and gradual way.

Between 2017 and 2019, the Fed let about $6 billion of Treasury securities mature and $4 billion of mortgage-backed securities “run off” per month, increasing that amount every quarter until it hit a maximum of $30 billion Treasuries and $20 billion mortgage-backed securities per month. By July 2019, the Fed announced that its unwinding was complete.

The Fed published a blog post detailing these efforts, categorizing them as its “balance sheet normalization program,” since it sought to “return the policy rate to more neutral levels.”

What Effect Does Quantitative Tightening Have on the Economy?

While the goal of quantitative easing is to spur growth, quantitative tightening doesn’t hinder it; in fact, many Governors of the Federal Reserve believe quantitative tightening doesn’t have much effect on the economy at all.

“Quantitative tightening does not have equal and opposite effects from quantitative easing,” said St. Louis Fed President Jim Bullard, “Indeed, one may view the effects of unwinding the balance sheet as relatively minor.”

Former Fed Chair Janet Yellen famously described quantitative tightening as “something that will just run quietly in the background over a number of years,” and that “it’ll be like watching paint dry.”

St. Louis Fed Research Director Chris Waller compared quantitative tightening with “slowly opening the stopper in a drain and letting the water run out,” and by doing so, they were “letting the supply of U.S. Treasuries in the hands of the private sector grow.”

But critics have argued that the excess reserves the Fed creates by “printing money” through quantitative easing have negative consequences on the overall economy. For example, these reserves can lead to currency devaluation and higher inflation, which is defined as when prices rise faster than wages. Inflation can have disastrous effects on an economy, resulting in asset bubbles and even recessions.

Even the Fed admitted as much when St. Louis Vice President Chris Neely noted that between 2008–13, the Fed’s asset purchases led to a decrease in 10-Year Treasury yields by 100–200 basis points. He said, “this reduction modestly raised prices and real activity.”

Just remember that the Fed’s principal aims are to generate stable prices and high employment. So while the Fed hasn’t explicitly said so, reducing its balance sheet might be one of its methods to combat inflation.

Why Is Quantitative Tightening on the Fed’s Agenda Again?

In 2022, inflation reached decades’ high, stemming from a number of factors, including fallout from the global Coronavirus pandemic, which increased labor prices, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which affected energy and commodities. In March, 2020, the Fed slashed the Fed Funds rate to 0.00%–0.25% in response to the pandemic. In May, 2022 it raised rates again by 0.5%.

What Is the Schedule for Quantitative Tightening?

On May 4, 2022, the Fed announced it would be undertaking a “phased approach” of quantitative tightening measures beginning with a 3-month period of unwinding $30 billion of Treasuries and $17.5 billion mortgage-backed securities beginning on June 1, 2022. By September, 2022 these caps would increase to $60 billion and $35 billion, respectively.

Is Quantitative Tightening Really So Frightening?

TheStreet’s Ellen Chang says that, according to economists, inflation is on a downward trend, most likely to decline to 3% by the end of the year, and that higher interest rates as well as quantitative tightening should do what they’re supposed to, and reduce pricing pressure. 

Read More

Continue Reading