A 'General Declaration' on Covid Jab Injuries by Norwegian Public Health Officialdom
This is how Covid-the-pandemic (scam) ends: with a brain-fart, not even a whimper, as 'the experts™' explain (sic) that any AEs transpiring 6+ weeks after injection are…fair game
Last week, I brought to your attention how the current batch of ‘experts™’ considers the issue of, ‘should I get another Covid shot now’? As in other instances, the answers—and some of the questions, too—were as mind-boggling as they were inane. Please catch up here:
Today, we’ll discuss how the Covid debacle ends, exemplified by professor of Gunnveig Grødeland (University of Oslo) typing a few pages ‘answering’ the few, not exactly burning questions the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation (NPE) has when dealing with vaccine-related compensation payouts.
Lest I forget, the last time the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation was in the news was, well, quite some time ago. Back in summer 2022, it told of people receiving a proverbial ‘FY’ to the tune of a few hundred bucks in exchange for, e.g., a young soldier getting myocarditis after a modRNA jab (he eventually received 2,000 Norwegian crows or some US$200 in ‘compensation’), literally adding insult to injury.
So, without much further ado, I bring to you the main points raised by Gunnveig Grødeland, professor of immunology and vaccinology at the University of Oslo. Lest you wonder, up front, what her stance on vaccines is, I shall briefly quote a paragraph from her faculty profile:
Current vaccines are still mostly based on the principle established by Edward Jenner in the late 18th century: A less pathogenic version of a virus is injected to protect against the threatening version. During the past year, we have witnessed a near paradigm shift for vaccine development against SARS-CoV-2, in that the new vaccines are mostly based on only selected parts of the virus. This has enabled rapid development of efficient vaccines, and generated knowledge that will be highly valuable also for quenching of future pandemic threats.
It’s the unholy trinity of ‘modRNA good’, ‘efficacy über alles’ (safety concerns are irrelevant), and ‘One Health to rule them all’.
So, before we continue, I would like to teach you one particular term: conflict of interests, which translates into Norwegian as interessekonflikt.
Here you may find the source of the below piece; all translations are mine, with perhaps emphases added.
Covid Jab Compensation Claims in Norway
Before we dive into the subject at-hand, a brief glance of the data made available by the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation is in order. According to their statistics database, a grand total of 37,691 claims were filed with NPE as of 25 Aug. 2024.
This is sadly, about everything we learn from the database because it doesn’t specify much, if anything, beyond the existence of a payout blip in 2023, which was about a quarter higher than in the preceding years (2022: payments for—presumably all kinds of patient injuries—stood at 1,116m Norwegian crowns; 2023: 1,420m crowns) because the ‘statistics’ aren’t more…descriptive.
There is a bit more information in an incredibly tone-deaf, normalising press release (dated 26 June 2024) with the condescending title ‘Norwegians continue to apply for Covid vaccine-related compensation’.
First of all, there’s a small, linked ‘overview’, which shows, among other things, that 71% of all filed claims concern women (!); the total number of claims filed for the period 2021-23 is given as 1,673, of which more than 400 (!!)—i.e., about a quarter—concern young people in their twenties (!!!). People in their thirties and forties make up another 350+ files, bringing the total of people under 50 who filed a claim to about 75%.
This is about everything anyone who cares will ever learn from ‘official™’ data, and, to me, this is an indictment of the mass vaccination campaign. In the ‘official™’ press release, this is what is said:
Despite the fact that many people apply for compensation in connection with the corona vaccine, the majority have their claims rejected. Only 30% of corona vaccine claims have been successful over the past three years. In other words, 70% have been rejected, amounting to 820 cases. 351 have been upheld…
A man from Vestfold is one of those whose application for compensation was rejected after taking the coronavirus vaccine. The rejection stated that the conditions were not met because the symptoms occurred 10 months after the vaccination. 10 months is a long time after what is considered a normal time window for side effects of 6-8 weeks.
A woman from Rogaland was successful in her application. The decision stated, among other things, that the inflammation of the pericardium and heart muscle was due to the corona vaccination. These are known side effects of the vaccine, and the symptoms occurred two days after the vaccination.
I shall offer my translation here: if you don’t keel over at the injection site or visit an ER virtually immediately after taking the jab, you’re screwed. I’ll quote one more bit from the point woman in charge before we move on.
Department Director Anne-Mette Gulaker says she realises that it can be difficult to understand why some people receive a ‘yes’ while others get a ‘no’…NPE uses skilled specialists in various medical fields to assess whether the vaccine can be the cause of impaired health.
‘We therefore hope that those who apply for compensation, through our case processing, get more answers as to why they are experiencing the ailments they are going through’, says Gulaker.
The most common ailments that have entitled claimants to compensation are inflammation of the pericardium, skin rashes, blood clots, and menstrual disorders.
I’ll delimit myself to pointing out what NPE is doing is judging whether any vaccine injury claim has merit; while this is, in principle, understandable, it’s also highly problematic: the gov’t ‘recommended’—and partially mandated—that all ‘eligible’ people take the Covid jab and refuses to hand out compensation even though the Covid jabs weren’t tested like every other such product (well, technically, they were tested even less than all others, but for the sake of the argument, hear me out).
It’s akin to the bureaucratic equivalent of perpetrator-victim inversion, with gov’t knowingly pushing ‘experimental’ products onto the population while treating any resulting ‘complications’ as if the modRNA jabs were like every other such product.
Especially in light of the fact that the ‘scientific™ expertise™’ we’re going to discuss now being, well, so different from ‘conventional’ injectable products—and the fact that such ‘expertise™’ was only obtained 3.5 years after the roll-out of the modRNA vaccines, to which we now turn.
A ‘General Declaration on Corona Vaccines’ by the NPE
Before we dive into the declaration, let’s briefly review its origins:
The Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation (NPE) has asked Gunnveig Grødeland to answer our request. The questions and answers are set out below. NPE has asked that the answers are justified and that they are as conclusive as possible.
While the date of this request is not given, the fact alone that this ‘general declaration’ was issued at-all 3.5 years into the Covid jab debacle speaks volumes: as a brief search of the NPE’s own website reveals, such a ‘general declaration’ has never been issued before (that is, since the NPE’s records are available online).
Basically, professor Grødeland was asked a range of questions, which she answered more or less exhaustively. The first question is: ‘how do vaccines work and what is special about the Covid vaccines?’, and here’s her answer:
The first step is for our immune system to recognise the virus or vaccine as something foreign, i.e., something that is potentially harmful to our body. The innate immune system will then initiate responses that can protect us from the intruder…
Where the innate immune system recognises patterns that are typical of many viruses or bacteria, the adaptive immune system will be primed to recognise a specific virus…we have an enormous range of receptors on B and T cells that can recognise different viruses [and bacteria]. However, the initial binding will typically not be very strong, so an effective adaptive immune response is also dependent on T cells contributing to increase the binding capacity of the B cell receptor to any particular pathogen…
Memory cells are the basis for the function of a vaccine. After vaccination (or infection with a virus), the antibody response that forms will come and go, but the memory cells will be ready for the next time you encounter the same or a similar virus. When that happens, the memory cells will quickly start producing antibodies and you’ll be protected.
That last paragraph is very important, because it basically equates (wrongly, I think) vaccine-induced immunity and natural immunity. I’m of course no medical doctor or ‘expert™’, but if you, dear readers, belong to these classes, pray tell: if vaccination-induced immunity is at least equal to natural immunity, why is there a need for so-called ‘booster vaccinations’?
Vaccines against viruses can also consist of a selected part of the virus. For virus vaccines, this is typically the [sic, I suppose there’s viruses with more than one such protein] surface protein, i.e., the protein that the virus uses to bind to our cells...Antibodies against the surface protein (Spike on SARS-CoV-2) will thus be able to prevent the virus from entering our cells (neutralising antibodies).
I’m very much unsure if the good professor knows what she’s talking about: the S protein is the one chosen for all of the Covid jabs, none of which prevent transmission or infection. So, please don’t ask me how ‘antibodies against the…spike protein’ are able to ‘prevent the virus from entering out cells’.
While this is a regrettably stupid comment, the most outrageous statements by professor Grødeland are the following ones (p. 2, just in case):
The big difference between DNA, mRNA, and protein vaccines is mainly where the protein production takes place. For protein vaccines, production takes place in a laboratory, while for DNA and mRNA vaccines it takes place more naturally in our cells. In all cases, the immune system will be trained to specifically recognise the produced protein.
So, artificially-created ‘potions’ make human cells produce something (proteins) ‘more naturally’—orig. mer naturlig—which is to say: ‘the science™’ is superior to nature. The next paragraph is also pretty…astounding:
So there is nothing special about the corona vaccines. Protein, DNA, and mRNA vaccines have been investigated for years in clinical trials against various viruses, including coronavirus[1-3]. What was new during the corona pandemic was that for the first time mRNA and DNA vaccines were used on a large scale. Coronavirus vaccines based on either mRNA (Pfizer and Moderne) or DNA (AstraZeneca and Janssen) were mainly used in Norway. In addition to the actual recipe for the protein to be produced (Spike), these vaccines also contain a coat [she means the lipid nanoparticles] to ensure that the recipe is delivered intact [sic] to the cells for production.
While I don’t know why an ostensible ‘expert™’ uses kindergarten-style lingo to talk to other ‘experts™’, this is a highly misleading and, above all, supremely obfuscatory statement.
We’ve known until Q2 of 2020 (at least) that ‘modRNA’ is a form of ‘gene therapy’, as per Moderna’s 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission:
The ‘coat’ that is used to deliver the pertinent information in both the DNA-vectored and modRNA injections is, of course, also known to be problematic, to say the least.
Just how problematic is professor Grødeland’s assertion? Well, depending on how deep you’d like to go down this particular rabbit-hole, please note, at the very least, that no toxicological (how poisonous these excipients or ‘coats’ are), carcinogenicity (if they cause or induce cancer), or genotoxicity (if they damage your DNA) data was available when these injectable products were authorised during the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’. If you desire footnotes and the like, please see here:
To be fair, prof. Grødeland ‘explains™’ this a bit more in the final paragraph in this opening answer, but her blablabla leaves much to be desired:
For the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna, the mRNA is delivered using a lipid nanoparticle. mRNA will degrade easily, so this lipid nanoparticle is important to keep the mRNA molecules stable so that protein production is possible after delivery to the cytoplasm of our cells [the essential term pseudouridine, which prevents quick disposal of RNA, is unmentioned]. This fat ball [orig. fettkulen] is also likely to be recognised as something foreign by the innate immune system, although not to the same extent as the Adenoviral vectors in the DNA vaccines from AstraZeneca and Janssen [give me grant money, BioNTech/Pfizer, Moderna!]. It is this difference in how the immune system recognises the different vaccines, and the strength of the responses that are then formed, that forms the basis for the variation in observed responses after vaccination with the different vaccines.
Bottom line here: modRNA, which is never explained (because doing so, I’d propose, would require ‘splainin’ the role of pseudouridine) nor are its consequences explored (potential long-term production of spike protein).
Moreover, the jab (pun intended) at the AZ and J&J products is, well, moronic as they, too, function more or less in the same way: the induce human cells to express foreign proteins, which render said human cells targets of the body’s own immune system to fend of the perceived ‘invader’.
Note that this is the first answer prof. Grødeland provides, and that what follows is expectably one-sided, exceptionally tone-deaf, and, of course, absurd.
On Infection vs. Vaccine-induced Reactions
The difference in the body’s reaction after vaccination compared to infection will vary for different vaccine types. Infection with a virus will result in strong activation of the innate immune system (which is why ne typically feels sick), and then the formation of antibodies against both surface proteins and other virus parts...
The vaccine that most closely mimics a viral infection are so-called live attenuated vaccines…
DNA and mRNA vaccines will only generate immune responses against the selected virus part (the surface protein), but can generate both antibodies and T cell responses against it. In practice, they therefore provide a greater breadth of immune responses compared to inactivated viral vaccines. [note the obfuscatory melding of the various vaccine types: in the preceding paragraph, she spoke about live attenuated vaccines while here professor Grødeland compares the Covid jabs to yet another category]
In other words, the mechanism for how immune responses are formed is the same after infection with the virus as before vaccination [more of this absurdity is here: in theory, the immune response to the body’s encounter with any pathogen is essentially comparable]. The difference is the breadth of immune responses that are generated, particularly T-cell responses.
And thus the cover-up continues: while prof. Grødeland, correctly, stated that natural immunity is broader than any kind of vaccine-induced immunity (sic, with perhaps the exception of Dr. Jenner’s use of a live pathogen), she immediately deflects from the subject by pointing to vague generalities, such as ‘body meets pathogen, it’s irrelevant if it’s a natural virus or a man-made synthetic version’.
The (presumed) cognitive dissonance between what the good professor surely knows and what she says is perhaps best (worst) expressed in the concluding paragraph on infection vs. injection-induced immunity:
The likelihood of side effects associated with exposure to viruses [this is used to be called ‘symptoms’] or vaccines [as if disease and medically-induced side effects are the same] depends on how well the innate immune system is able to recognise typical patterns and viral structures [translation from—actually worse-than-usual academese—ghibberish: if you’re healthy, vaccines don’t add anything; I doubt prof. Grødeland understood the implications of her words]. Thus, the likelihood of side effects is clearly greatest after infection with viruses [again, symptoms aren’t unsolicited adverse events]. Furthermore, vaccines of live attenuated viruses have a high likelihood of side effects, including DNA vaccines inserted into adenoviral vectors [huhum, I wonder if prof. Grødeland received ‘grants’ from modRNA manufacturers?]...Note, however, that it is not only vaccine factors that will influence the formation of side effects, but also host-specific factors [again, if you’re healthy, you’re probably o.k.; it’s the second time she notes this—and demolishes, in so doing, the rationale for any kind of ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, which includes, I’d argue, also all other vaccines]. In other words, our genetics, health status, and evolutionary pathogen history (which viruses and bacteria we have encountered in the past [cross-immunity for the win]) will affect how we respond to vaccination or infection.
Please, professsor Grødeland, pray tell why we first world-dwellers should get vaccinated?
Can the Covid Jabs Make You Sick with Covid?
[Grødeland] For protein, mRNA, and DNA vaccines, clearly no. Vaccines based on inactivated viruses will, in principle, not cause the disease either, but this requires that the virus is properly inactivated. However, with the current system for safety checks during production, there is no reason to assume that this is a real problem.
Vaccines based on live attenuated viruses can cause the disease they are supposed to prevent, which is why they cannot be used for the most vulnerable risk groups.
Can a condition/disease be associated with a vaccine if it is not known to be a consequence of the disease the vaccine protects against?
[Grødeland] Basically, no. However, our knowledge of the immune system is still limited, so it is important to monitor all unexpected events following vaccination. This showed that a few genetically predisposed individuals developed narcolepsy after vaccination against "swine flu" in 2009[8], and unfortunately we cannot rule out similar events in the future. That said, the use of subunit vaccines reduces the likelihood of this happening by the same mechanism in any case. In addition, the population is incredibly diverse in terms of the immune responses it generates, so it is not inconceivable that individuals may develop a condition or disease that was triggered by a given vaccine. In these cases, it will be important to investigate mechanistic causes that can explain the possible connection.
These two paragraphs are the ‘get out of jail free’ card equivalent here. Note the categorical, flat-out denial of any possible causal links between serious adverse events of any vaccine and the disease said injection ‘protects’ against.
Rendered into plain English, what prof. Grødeland does here is odious on three counts:
Make an injectable product whose AEs mimic, or can be attributed to, any symptoms possibly related to the underlying ‘disease’ (I’m using scare quotes because, technically speaking, ‘SARS’ means ‘severe acute respiratory syndrome’, i.e, it’s not yet determined to be the underlying cause of any of said symptoms)
Given the ‘ongoing’ epidemic, it’s highly unlikely that the ever-changing symptoms of the Coronavirus syndrome will likely be static enough for a long enough period of time to result, by way of ICD codes, definitions, and the like something whose sequelae can be, plausibly, linked to derive from one or the other mechanism of action. Hence, the anodyne lingo that ‘it is not inconceivable that…’, which essentially tells everyone that there’s no solid, uniform understanding of anything and that the odds of anyone’s filing is, ultimately, connected to the strengths of one’s arguments; in other words: it’s unscientific to the core.
Finally, let’s not overlook the fact that prof. Grødeland never answered the question if the Covid jabs can make you sick with Covid (given that they don’t prevent transmission or infection, they can’t, but that’s something prof. Grødeland apparently—and conveniently so—ignores). She, again, deflects from the question by ‘answering™’ an unasked question.
Invocation of the Swine Flu hoax of 2009 is also highly misleading, as the mass-vaccination campaign (with a conventional, fully licensed) product revealed, some 1.5m shots (in Norway) into said efforts, that there was 1 (!!!) domestic incident of a girl coming down with narcolepsy (there were also some 25 more such incidents in neighbouring Sweden and Finland, which influenced the Norwegian decision to discontinue the mass vaccination campaign literally overnight.
For an extensively annotated account, please see here:
By comparison, the Covid injections were rolled out in Norway on 27 Dec. 2020; by 14 Jan. 2021, the Norwegian Medicines Agency (Legemiddelvakt) knew of 13 (!!!) deaths three weeks into the jab campaign. ‘Benefits’ outweighed the ‘risks’, public health officials claimed back then; the rest, as the saying goes, is history:
How long after vaccination can you expect side effects?
[this is still from NPE] The authorities at the Institute for Public Health [orig. Folkehelseinstituttet] state on their website that it is very unusual for side effects to occur more than six weeks after vaccination [good to know that ‘the authorities’ also determined that the ‘benefits’ of some elderly (and younger) people dying would—still—outweighed the ‘risks’]. They point out that the knowledge about this is based on side effect monitoring over several decades and data from the use of many different vaccines all over the world, see Side effects or symptoms after corona vaccination—IPH.
[here comes NPE’s question for the good professor] Can 6 weeks be a general starting point if research does not show otherwise? If you disagree with this, why? Should there be different time intervals depending on the type of side effects/symptoms? If so, what should these time intervals be?
[prof. Grødeland] Side effects will typically occur during the first few days after vaccination [you mean, keeling over an dying? Or being (force) vaccinated in a care home and dying shortly thereafter?]. This is because they will mainly occur as a consequence of the inflammation that forms when the innate immune system recognises something foreign [oopsie, shouldn’t have said that because you’ve described this as the mechanism of action of the modRNA and DNA-vectored jabs]. For this reason, they [spike proteins] will also typically disappear within a short period of time. A limit of 6 weeks for assessing a direct correlation with vaccination is reasonable, because it also takes into account the fact that there is great individual variation in the formation of immune responses.
It won’t get better from there.
[NPE] There is a lot of research into the side effects of corona vaccines. Is it possible to say something general about the results of the research so far?
[Grødeland] The most serious side effect was observed after the use of adenoviral vector vaccines, as these were found to cause vaccine-induced thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (VITT) after a relatively short period of use. Norway therefore stopped further use of the adenoviral vector vaccine from AstraZeneca, but it was politically decided to continue to offer the corresponding vaccine from Janssen outside the vaccination programme to healthy younger people who wanted to move up the vaccine queue faster at the time [know your risk, I suppose].
The vaccines that have been most frequently used in the Norwegian vaccination programme against SARS-CoV-2 are the mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer. These have been shown to cause myocarditis and pericarditis, especially among younger men. The vaccines are also associated with menstrual irregularities, but this is probably more common for several vaccines.
This is so bad—what’s the worst outcome? Surely ‘death’ would be, isn’t it?
The AZ death jab caused some 8 or so deaths before being pulled in March 2021. But two thirds of all ‘Covid-associated deaths’ occurred in 2022, as is widely acknowledged:
Back to prof. Grødeland:
There is currently no evidence that these disorders can become permanent…more prolonged symptoms have been reported in some vaccinated individuals, but so far no statistical excess has been observed after vaccination.
Technically, she’s correct—because when, earlier this year, a statistician from the IPH came forward, he did so on his own and stressed that he didn’t speak for the Folkehelseinstituttet:
[Grødeland] Studies in mice have shown that there are elements of the innate inflammatory response that, after virus infection, can cause the symptoms associated with LTC, so it cannot currently be ruled out that the inflammatory response associated with vaccination may also cause symptoms of LTC in a very few cases. A challenge here, however, is to distinguish the consequences of vaccination from other influences, such as viral infection…
A prerequisite for our immune system to form good immune responses after vaccination is actually that the vaccine activates part of our innate immune system (as the virus would have done). In some cases, this activation will give rise to the side effects that relatively often occur in the days following vaccination (e.g., swelling at the vaccination site, fever, soreness, etc.).
Bottom Lines
Obfuscation and deflection, that’s the M.O. of ‘the Science™’ these days, and the above-related ‘general declaration’ is about as much as we’ll ever get ‘the authorities’ to admit anything.
The above-related passages are about as much as ‘we’ will ever get in terms of ‘admissions’ of any kind. Close temporal association with administration of any injection being key, the moment they define a window of relevance—six weeks after injection—everything that happened after, say, summer 2021, is never going to be accepted by public health authorities, insurance compensation schemes, or any courts for that matter (the latter because they defer to the former on these matters).
Then there’s the language employed by professor Grødeland, which also serves more to obscure, rather than enlighten, the casual reader (politicians, journos, judges, etc.). The ‘general declaration’ is very vague—which I think is deliberate—and at no point are relevant specifics provided that might induce anyone reading this document from getting a wee bit too curious, such as, e.g., pseudouridine, lipid nanoparticles, or the like.
Given that this document is the one-stop file that’s now going to be used in assessing all future claims (provided any official investigating these claims has ‘doubts’ about adverse events in the first place), we may therefore conclude:
This is also ‘how Covid ends’: with a pathetic brain-fart, not even with a whimper.
The one and only lesson to be drawn is this: if you didn’t fall for the Covid agit-prop—which was, let’s not mince words here, the most comprehensive, biggest, and most coordinated global propaganda campaign ever—I doubt you’ll fall for the next scam.
If, however, you fell for the Covid scam and can’t find any problems with what you’re experiencing, well, you’ll probably fall for the next scam, too.
Humanity’s bifurcation is here.
It may not be what we imagined it to be (masters vs. slaves, globalists vs. rabble), but it’s here. No doubt, the ramifications will be massive, but that’s something to relate and discuss at another time.