Sweden Democrat stirs debate over vaccine ‘poison shot’ and climate

Swedish Radio reported that Richthoff in a local Facebook group for the population in Mariefred, called the Covid-19 vaccine a “poison shot”.

“I want to spice things up a bit. You do not really know what the effect is. Well-known doctors, virologists, immunologists, who have doctorates in cell biology and other things, are extremely critical of this. In several of their posts, they even compare this to taking an injection that you do not know the effect of, and thus you could treat it as a poison injection. I highlighted it a bit to speed up this debate, which I have missed for so long – and still miss,” he explained to Swedish Radio.

In the Facebook post, he wrote, among other things, that “today, many children can be so affected that they unknowingly take a first poison injection against Covid-19”. He also questioned “this so-called vaccine”, saying that “the disadvantages of taking the vaccine far outweigh the benefits it does, especially for children”.

When Swedish Radio asked him if he did not trust the Swedish Public Health Agency, he said that he was calling for more participation in the debate, “What I am looking for is a debate. I know what the Swedish Public Health Agency says, and when I see these claims, I find that there are other researchers who say that children are almost never affected by this disease so that they become seriously ill.”

Richthoff’s statement has provoked strong reactions from both the system media and from his own party. The liberal political commentator on TV4, Marcus Oscarsson, said that it was an “astonishing statement” that is “extra serious” given that Richthoff is a member of parliament and top politician.

Oscarsson accused him of spreading “inaccuracies”. Science journalist Ulrika Björkstén on Swedish Radio called the statement “extremely remarkable”. The Sweden Democrats’ deputy group leader in the Riksdag, Mattias Bäckström Johansson, said that everyone must be allowed to form their own opinion about vaccination – something that does not seem to apply to Richthoff, who is being condemned in harsh terms by the mainstream.

The Sweden Democrats however did not question the recommendations and guidelines set by the Swedish Public Health Agency. “Everyone must be given the chance to form their own opinion and vaccination must be based on voluntariness, we are convinced that it plays a crucial role in the fight against the virus and the pandemic,” Johansson told Aftonbladet.

On October 11, public broadcaster SVT’s programme “Ask the Doctor” featured Matti Sällberg who has interests in the vaccine industry and who is not a doctor, commenting on the risks of vaccines. Unsurprisingly, he tried to downplay the risk of myocarditis in young male recipients.

Richthoff also defended Nils-Axel Mörner, a world-renowned legend in marine research. According to Mörner the climate may have been warmer before and it is not the carbon dioxide that has caused this. “Today we stand at the top of a natural 60-year temperature cycle that is now turning. Now it’s getting colder again!” the researcher has pointed out.

Mörner said that this carbon dioxide’s effect on the climate was extremely small, maybe even negligible and that there was no reason for halving carbon dioxide in 11 years as is being suggested by climate alarmists. “It is pure fabrication and has nothing to do with real science. It is purely perverted to claim that carbon dioxide is a polluter. Carbon dioxide is the molecule of life.”

He has worked actively to investigate sea surface levels over an extended period of time in over 60 countries and has written 671 scientific articles and has dismissed such claims.

In other words, Mörner is particularly qualified to speak out when it comes to climate issues. Yet he is not invited to Sweden’s television to give a balanced picture of the climate propaganda.

“They are not educated in physics but are just doing their climate models, to make it look like the carbon dioxide is the villain in the drama. But when the models don’t match reality, it’s reality that should apply. That’s not how it is. Instead, you change reality by falsifying data and curves in the models. It’s terrible,” said Nils-Axel.