My post was actually more about you. You presented the Swede as a "balanced" and reputable doctor because it was sufficient for you that you liked the sound of his claims. Then there was your internationally respected cancer professor who actually gets cease and desist letters about his false accreditation claims. And so on.
You need to think more carefully about the source of your info. Who's writing it? Why are they writing it? Why should their opinion be trusted? What's their evidence and how reliable is it? Is there counter-evidence to their claims? Has/Is the work gone through a reputable peer review process? Where is it published? Has it been rejected by the scientific consensus, but latched onto by the conspiracy loons? Otherwise you may as well tune into this guy for your science updates:
And my post was about Niall Ferguson; the bloke who wrote a paper which got us all locked down without it even being peer reviewed.
Later all kinds of folk ripped into it and his past record.
And then he was caught banging a chubby lass - during lockdown - who was married to an academic who apparently gives her permission to go and get banged by other blokes.
Ferguson's excuse was that he thought he had immunity.
But the thing is, I'm smart enough to know that just because Ferguson gets some things wrong - sometimes quite major things - that he shouldn't automatically be discredited.