Discover more from Die Fackel 2.0
Covid in Norway: Lies of Omission by the Institute of Public Health Suggests Massive Misinformation on Their Part
Highlights incl. booster jab VE of max. 37%, according to Norwegian data, gone entirely after 4 months--and the mechanism by which the many dead and serious AEs are hidden
This is a follow-up to yesterday’s post about the Norwegian vaccine campaign, which shifts gears as I type this. Please refer to the below-linked post:
Here’s what I habitually do: check out the references, which is what I did with the Institute of Public Health’s ‘Answer to Task 68: An Assessment of Another Booster Dose (4th Dose)’. Dated 24 June 2022, here are some things I’ve found:
Section 1.1: Surveillance of Severe Covid Disease (pp. 9-13)
Apart from combined incidence graphs that make it impossible to spot any ‘vaccine effect’ (in terms of preventing transmission or infection), we do get some official estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE), summarised in Tables 1 and 2, with the difference being the former lumps together unvaccinated and those who took any number of shots—and the latter shows ‘only’ those who received three jabs.
Table 1: total no. of hospitalisation in weeks 21-24 (22 May-18 June 2022): 502
Table 2: total no. of hospitalisation of triple-jabbed: 390, or approx. 78% of the above
Note, however, that, as per Table 3 (p. 14), ‘vaccine’ uptake among Norwegians stands at ‘only’ 54%, hence the triple-jabbed are crowding out all other groups (unvaccinated, 1-2 jabs) in terms of hospitalisation requirements.
Section 3: Vaccine Efficacy (pp. 19-25)
Here, the IPH collates lots of studies from other countries (Qatar, Canada, Brazil, Czechia, France, Israel). Here are the results, summarised in Figure 7 and 8 (pp. 22-23).
Note two oddities: first, they are weighing the results to make a curious point. Now, I’m not a medical researcher, and I do know that weighing is sometimes used to adjust for certain confounding variables—but the results?
Speaking of results, here’s the paper by Carazo et al. 2022 on Canada, which is really a study of healthcare workers from Québec, and which contains this gem (my emphasis; references omitted):
In Quebec, as in many other countries with high vaccine coverage, most cases during the Omicron BA.1 surge were two-dose recipients as booster campaigns for the general population unfolded only in response to signals of Omicron immune evasion and surge.
Vaccine on top of natural exposure infection conferred no additional benefit.
Here’s what the IPH makes of this: the Canada paper is weighed at 99.3% of the total ‘score’:
There’s no accounting, no less an explanatory note, in the IPH’s document as to the reasons for, methods used, and rational behind this weighing of results.
Same with Figure 8, although here I’d like to draw your attention to the estimated VE of a mere 46% against PCR-positivity and infection, 65% against hospitalisation (see the above data on triple-jabbed hospitalisations), and 78% against death.
On the fatal outcomes, be reminded that ‘all-cause’ (number) injected individuals by far outnumber the ‘unvaccinated’ in this category, and they do so for a long time:
I call BS on the IPH’s VE ‘data’, compiled below in Figure 8:
Also, the IPH’s own data suggests that these ‘computations’ are, well, numbers that bear little relation to reality.
As compiled in Tables 4, Figure 9, and Table 5 (pp. 23-25), the MoBa (‘Mother, Father, and Child Survey’) surveyed VE estimates (using Cox regression) since injection with a booster shot. Based on 86,043 adults between 32-78 years, the results are certainly far from pretty:
Yes, you saw that correctly: VE against PCR-positivity after a booster jab was never higher than 37% in the first month and dropped to 10% after four months.
VE against severe illness (ganske syk) never exceeded 50% (a coin toss) after 30 days, and it barely helped against extreme illness (veldig syk) after four months.
Yes, you saw that correctly, too: VE against PCR-positivity after a booster jab could be negative after four months.
The above table shows the risk for contracting Omicron after a booster jab: note the significant increase in risk (calculation based on 6,553 people between 60-81 years of age) after four months, in particular for the ‘severe disease’ category (ganske eller veldig syk).
Safety (pp. 26-29)
The section on safety—rather: ‘harm’—is the most disingenuous, though. As I’ve been telling you, based on the Norwegian Medicines Agency’s own reports (see the latest here), there were at least 260 dead and close to 60,000 adverse events reported. This is without precedent—yet all one gets from reading the IPH’s prose are vacuous statements, such as the below:
AEs are more severe among younger people compared to older people.
There is little experience with a second booster jab.
Appallingly, the IPH claims that there’s virtually no difference between mRNA injections vs. ‘other’ vaccines.
This is a lie.
For extensive background, please see my mid-March posting:
Here’s the way the IPH gaslights those few who read these reports:
Most elderly, including those in hospital and care home settings, tolerated mRNA vaccines well, and they had few, or light, adverse events after both primary vaccination [doses 1+2] and the 1st booster jab. [my emphasis]
If you visit the footnotes 53 and 54, you’ll get this:
Yes, some stuff from 2021 (source here) that is decidedly pre-Omicron in footnote 53 and the link to the general AE report site over at the Medicines Agency.
There are no data provided, there is no mention of any AEs, nothing.
Best way to avoid giving answers that might land one in trouble is not to speak about it.
I’m utterly disgusted by this, in particular because the people in charge today—Preben Aavitsland at the IPH, Steinar Madsen at the NMA—are the same who declared in 2009 and 2020 that all is under control.
260 dead that are officially accounted for.
Anyone who takes these jabs in 2022 is either an idiot or a fool.
Hey, Preben and Steinar, how many more do you deem ‘acceptable’?
The truth will come out—and then there will be hell to pay.