Delusional as Fuck, Norway's Public Health Officialdom Calls to 'Replace US Leadership'

And if you thought that European politics-cum-lunacy would not get worse, well, I've got bad news for y'all: behold the sheer absurdity of Norway (pop. 5.6m) seeking to outdo the US globally

This is a very long piece, hence I’ll merely mention that the below non-English content comes to you in my translation, with emphases and [snark] added.

---

Støre Must Take Global Leadership

After the fall of the US, Norway should take the lead on global health security and preparedness.

Støre must take the lead where Europe perhaps needs him most, in the field of health security, write the health leaders of the Stoltenberg Committee in this article.

An op-ed by Camilla Stoltenberg, chairwoman of the Stoltenberg Committee on Global Health, and eight other panel members, NRK, 13 March 2025 [source]

European leaders need to stand up for the continent’s security in troubled times [that is the least they should do]. Leaders [sic, apparently no irony here] such as French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer are now showing leadership for Europe and for Ukraine [yep, that’s what these geniuses wrote]

It’s also good to see the Parliament significantly increasing our support [hard to know what is meant: it could be Norway’s recent approval of 85b NOK = about US$ 8b in more weapons for Ukraine; Norway has some 85,000 senior citizens living below the EU’s poverty definition (but cost-of-living is higher in Norway: money well spent, I suppose); note that Norway currently has a centre-left/far-left gov’t, and that this stance is a firmly all-partisan issue]. But Europe’s security challenges do not stop there.

Støre and Norway rarely have good expertise in something that struck us just five years ago, and which could also strike us again [but…if the Covid Mania was ‘unprecedented’, how could Støre, Norway, or anyone have such expertise in the first place? Note, too that the lead author of this op-ed, Camilla Stoltenberg (Wikipedia bio), was in charge of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health from 2012-23 and thus Norway’s chief public health (sic) officer during the Covid Mania; she had been appointed while her brother, formerly NATO’s clown-in-chief Jens, was prime minister: perhaps he has ‘good expertise’ in something, really, anything…?]

Health Security is also Preparedness

The corona pandemic from March 2020 showed us how vulnerable we are. And the research is clear: the likelihood of new pandemics is high [I suppose ‘the Science™’ concurs, too].

According to a Lancet commission last autumn, there is a 50% probability of a new pandemic with a higher mortality rate than COVID-19 before 2050. That means more than 25 million deaths, far more than in the war in Ukraine and all wars globally [I’ve briefly looked at that publication, and this sentence by public health expert™ Stoltenberg and her ilk is about as accurate as whatever her brother said about geopolitics while serving as NATO’s clown-in-chief; I’ll discuss the piece below the op-ed’s translation].

Trump pulling the US out of the WHO is potentially catastrophic, even for them.

The threat has become particularly topical in recent weeks.

First, Trump decided that the US would withdraw from the World Health Organisation (WHO), to which it contributes a fifth of all funding [I suppose the dearth of funding to be Ms. Stoltenberg’s issue here, not Mr. Trump’s withdrawal per se: priorities, you know]. Then he made massive cuts to US health aid—around a third of all health aid globally [why don’t you, Ms. Stoltenberg, argue for replacing that USAID money instead of what follows?].

Investing in prevention and health preparedness is far cheaper than dealing with a global pandemic after it has spread [would that include, say, early treatment with cheap, proven, and over-the-counter drugs, such as Ivermectin?]. Yet this is constantly being de-prioritised, even in rich countries [of course, we have the poison/death juices].

Norwegian Preparedness is Not Enough

The Corona Commissions’ evaluations are clear that Norway was not sufficiently prepared last time [this is a rich point—there’s, of course, no linked content (now, why would that be?), but, fear not, dear readers of this webzine, your dedicated host of course wrote about the Corona Commission's findings back in 2022]. But better preparedness in Norway is still not enough. Health crises know no borders. They can occur anywhere and spread quickly [while, technically true, the main concern of the Corona Commission was that—before the Covid Mania, everybody agreed that ICU bed availability was the Achilles heel because no-one knew how many such beds were available…no need to bother the former chief public health official with such details, though].

A significant part of Norway’s efforts to protect us from future pandemics must therefore focus on strengthening health security globally [but why? the second major finding (sic) of that (in US lingo Blue Ribbon) commission was that the new public management funding system of hospitals (Foretaksmodellen, introduced in 2002 by the left-wing gov’t) broke during the Covid Mania—why? I’m glad you asked: ‘each hospital is run as an independent company. The hospitals then receive money from the state based on how much activity they have, and they are themselves responsible for turning a profit’—but with the gov’t mandating lockdowns and stopping elective procedures, care to guess what happened…? Alas, these details are far to insignificant for Ms. Stoltenberg and her ilk to note here, as the remainder of the op-ed draws attention elsewhere].

The likelihood of new pandemics is high.

Effective prevention of and response to health crises globally requires flexible and effective actors that are well coordinated [yeah, pour more money into the netherworld of NGOs, consultancy firms, and think tanks: why? Perhaps it’ll interest you that Ms. Stoltenberg and virtually everyone who was in charge in 2020/21 are now working for…bingo: NGOs, consultancy firms, and think tanks (Ms. Stoltenberg works for NORCE, a GONGO that performs a secondary role as ‘research incubator’].

The WHO plays a key role in this work today. Trump pulling the US out of the WHO is potentially disastrous, also for the US itself [I suppose FAFO isn’t an option here].

Good health security in Norway also requires good health systems in other countries—including those that are poor [remember: no-one is safe until and unless everyone is safe, jabbed repeatedly, or whatever ‘the Science™’ says].

If Rwanda had not had a good system for identifying and stopping outbreaks of infection, the outbreak of the deadly Marburg virus, which was stopped at record speed last autumn, could have threatened global security [did you hear about this? Here’s the CDC’s summary, here’s the WHO on it: ‘sporadic outbreaks have occurred in various parts of Africa since the first recognized cases in 1967, this outbreak was the third largest outbreak of MVD ever recorded…with no approved treatments or vaccines for MVD, early intervention…is crucial’ [remember: early treatment doesn’t work for Covid].

We cannot expect poor countries to fully fund pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response on their own.

Firstly, their health needs are great in other areas too. Secondly, the benefits of such measures also—and perhaps primarily—accrue to us in rich countries [go ahead, re-read that statement: Ms. Stoltenberg and her ilk call for more spending by rich countries to benefit—get this—rich countries; is this a gaffe, mendacity, or sheer stupidity?].

In Our Own Interest

Investing in health systems in developing countries is not just about solidarity and aid, but about investing in our own security. It’s about global security and stability. The responsibility should therefore not only lie with the development minister.

Health crises know no borders.

Norwegian aid funds are already hard pressed by increased support for Ukraine and increased refugee costs in Norway, as well as extraordinary needs due to Trump’s dramatic cuts in USAID.

If Norway is to make a significant contribution to Norwegian, European, and global health security, investments cannot be limited by the aid ceiling of one per cent of GDP [my taxes already co-sponsor Ukraine, I mean, where else should they be sent to?].

In the expert committee on global health, of which I was a member last autumn, we recommended that Norway should increase its investments in Norwegian and global health security. Norway should unite Europe and other countries in a concerted effort for health security where the US is failing. We have the funding, political will, expertise, and credibility [well, if that’s not utterly delusional, I don’t know what is].

A Perfect Role for Støre [Norway’s current PM]

Both Jonas Gahr Støre and Jens Stoltenberg played key roles when Norway contributed to the establishment of the GAVI vaccine alliance [talk about grift here for a moment: Støre or Stoltenberg might be out of office come autumn, hence they’ll need well-paying ‘jobs™’; note the absence of any critical distance between lead author Camilla and her brother Jens who currently serves as finance minister]. They were given a Norwegian leader, Tore Godal, and later Erna Solberg increased Norway’s contribution [fool me once].

The corona pandemic from March 2020 showed us how vulnerable we are.

Solberg was also Prime Minister when Norway and others, three other countries and two foundations, established CEPI in 2016 [fool me twice, as George W. Buch said, and you can’t get fooled again], a global coalition for the prevention of epidemics and pandemics. It would be important for the world’s response to COVID-19.

Norway has historically played a leading role in global health, and we can do it again. It’s been five years since the start of the last pandemic—let’s avoid another one soon.

We call on Mr. Støre to take leadership where Europe may need him most, in health security [please don’t: Mr. Støre is a well below-average career apparatchik whose ‘policies’ (sic) whose failure was commented on by The Telegraph, of all places, as ‘“Soviet” Norway’ six weeks ago (archived)]. The Prime Minister himself worked at the WHO, under Gro Harlem Brundtland, and has everything it takes to show direction and leadership [ah, it’s the globalists’ version of Bullshit Bingo, I suppose: fork over taxpayer money to CEPI, coordinate with GAVI, work at WHO, etc.].

Europe needs that now.

[Editorial note] The authors were members of the Stoltenberg Committee on Global Health in autumn 2024.

---

What Does that Lancet Paper Say?

After this painful op-ed (sigh), here’s what the Lancet actually said in the contribution entitled, ‘Global health 2050: the path to halving premature death by mid-century’ by Prof. Dean T. Jamison Ph.D. et al. (Volume 404, Issue 10462, pp. 1561-1614, 19 Oct. 2024):

Executive Summary

In Global Health 2050, the Lancet Commission on Investing in Health concludes that dramatic improvements in human welfare are achievable by mid-century with focused health investments. By 2050, countries that choose to do so could reduce by 50% the probability of premature death in their populations—ie, the probability of dying before age 70 years—from the levels in 2019. We call this goal 50 by 50. The interventions that enable achieving the goal of 50 by 50 should also reduce morbidity and disability at all ages.

Briefly, I must interrupt the flow here—because what the authors of that piece do is—utterly deranged and highly problematic bordering on (academic) fraud.

Why would I say that?

Well, you see, here’s the definition of ‘premature death’ from the CDC (accessed 14 March 2025):

Death that occurs before the average age of death in a certain population. In the United States, the average age of death is about 75 years. Smoking cigarettes and being exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke are leading causes of premature death in the United States. They can increase the risk of cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung disease, and many other health problems. Other causes of premature death are injuries and suicide.

It’s literally identical to, say, the pre-Covid definition of ‘premature death’ (via the Internet Archive from 23 Jan. 2019).

Now I’d like you to re-read that first paragraph from The Lancet, which reads as follows:

…premature death [is] the probability of dying before age 70 years…

This is literally where the fraud is: by moving the goalposts like this, The Lancet just invented a different definition, which is kinda arbitrary, might provide a baseline for future reference, but it is certainly different enough from what most prior studies have (presumably) used. Moreover, due to data splice, most such studies before the definition was changed are now useless because one cannot compare them to each other.

If this isn’t Orwellian newspeak, I don’t know what is. It also, and quite perfectly so, fits the Covid Mania, doesn’t it?

Historical experience and continued scientific advances suggest that 50 by 50 is a feasible aspiration. Seven of the 30 most populous countries have reduced their probability of premature death over the past decade at a rate that would halve the probability before 2050, including countries as diverse as Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Iran, and Türkiye. These focused gains can be achieved early on the pathway to full universal health coverage [note the underlying intellectual fallacy here: the authors simply, and in a linear fashion, extrapolate past experiences; if only one variable changes—such as, say, a severe economic downturn, the point is moot].

To achieve the 50-by-50 goal, action focusing on 15 priority conditions is required. In countries that have a high probability of premature death, infectious diseases and maternal conditions are the highest priority. Seven clusters of non-communicable diseases [so, they don’t have ‘pandemic potential’, eh?] and injuries among the 15 priority conditions are important in all countries, and addressing them will be central to achieving 50 by 50 in most countries with a low probability of premature death. Focused attention on health-system strengthening for primary care and first-level hospitals will be crucial to improving capacity to address all 15 conditions in a universal health coverage package. Packaging interventions into 19 modules (including a childhood immunisation module [of course, ye Big Pharma whores] and a module on prevention [would that include cheap, over-the-counter drugs, such as ivermectin?] and low-cost widely available treatments for cardiovascular disease [less sugar and exercise are certainly off the table]) should help to address the 15 priority conditions. Adoption of this focused approach should also enable investment in key areas of health-system strengthening and addresses major morbidities, such as psychiatric illness [my guess is that this means funding for psychoactive drugs for third-world countries: what could go wrong?], that are not already covered by mortality-reducing interventions. Value for money can be assessed through a two-step process: technical cost effectiveness to assess how best to achieve module-specific goals (eg, reductions in child mortality or cardiovascular mortality) and political assessment of trade-offs [lol, sure] in investing in expanding module coverage.

In many countries seeking reform, standard mechanisms of blanket budget transfers from ministries of finance to ministries of health have failed to successfully reorient systems towards priority interventions that improve health. This problem could be addressed by directing a substantial and increasing fraction of budget transfers towards making available and affordable the specific drugs, vaccines, diagnostics, and other commodities [you see, if we good Global Health experts™ could only get line-item earmarking powers in third-world countries to fork over public funds to Big Pharma, all will be well] required for control of the 15 priority conditions. Making drugs available and affordable will typically require four complementary components: redirection of general budget transfers to line-item transfers (subsidies) for specific priority drugs, centralised procurement by government (or perhaps internationally), procurement in sufficient volumes to ensure availability when needed, and use and strengthening of existing supply chains (public and private) [if this reeks like colonialism by yet another name, that’s because it is, albeit in the globalist mould].

Of the many intersectoral policies that governments can adopt to help to achieve the 50-by-50 goal, tobacco control is by far the most important, given the number of deaths [but what about Pandemic™ potential?] caused by tobacco and the established and improving capacity of governments to implement tobacco policy. A high level of tobacco taxation is essential (and valuable in the short-to-medium term for public finances) and should be accompanied by a package of other effective tobacco control policies.

So, a bunch of everything but Covid™. No worries, we’re in for a treat here:

Background research conducted for the Commission points to exceptionally high mortality risk from pandemics. Management of the COVID-19 pandemic [finally], and resulting outcomes, varied greatly between countries. Eventual vaccine availability attenuated, but did not eliminate, this variability in outcomes by the end of the emergency phase of COVID-19. National implementation of public health fundamentals—early action, isolation of infected individuals, quarantining of those exposed, and social and financial support for people isolating or quarantining—accounted for much of the success of the best-performing nations, such as China and Japan [we just need excessively high levels of Communism and a similarly complacent population in the West]. In the next pandemic, implementation of these fundamentals should reduce mortality while awaiting vaccine development and deployment [we have, officially, learned nothing from the Covid Mania, other than, perhaps, that we’re in for a re-run before too long].

In addition to these country-level actions, we recommend enhanced commitment from the development assistance community. Development assistance should focus on two broad purposes. The first is the provision of direct financial and technical support to countries with the least resources to help them to develop health systems to better control diseases [more control by ‘experts™’, such as Ms. Stoltenberg and her ilk] The second is the financing of global public goods [one more time, let’s all cheer for the Big Pharma whores], including reducing the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance, preventing and responding to pandemics, identifying and spreading best practices, and developing and deploying new health technologies. For both of these purposes, focusing efforts on the 15 priority conditions would best contribute to achieving a 50% reduction in the probability of premature death by 2050. A decade ago, there were no malaria vaccines and the only available tuberculosis vaccine had low efficacy. As of 2024, two partly successful malaria vaccines have been approved and three promising tuberculosis vaccines are in late-stage trials.

Well, I haven’t looked into the TBC juices, but I did enquire about the Malaria juices, and what I’ve seen doesn’t convince me:

African Children as Guinea Pigs: A Look at GSK's Malaria Jab

These successes exemplify the enormous contribution of development assistance, broadly defined, in funding development of new medicines, vaccines, diagnostics, and operational research against the 15 priority conditions.

The 50-by-50 goal, with an interim milestone of a 30% reduction in the probability of premature death by 2035, remains within reach. The most efficient route is to focus resources against a narrow set of conditions and scale up financing to develop and deploy new health technologies [remember: ‘tobacco control is by far the most important’—and ask yourself what ‘new health technologies’ must be developed? I call BS (and boondoggle alert)]. Our analyses have shown that the economic value of achievable mortality declines is high and is often a substantial fraction of the value of gains from economic growth itself. The case is better than ever for the value of investing in health for reducing mortality and morbidity, alleviating poverty, growing economies, and improving human welfare.

If the ‘by far…most important’ aspect, ‘tobacco control’, is any indication, guess what that means in practice:

high level of [pandemic prevention™] taxation is essential (and valuable in the short-to-medium term for public finances) and should be accompanied by a package of other effective [pandemic™] control policies.

You see, high taxation, perhaps a ‘global/one health’ surtax (plus, of course, a new, dedicated gov’t department), and, of course, additional, of course, ‘effective control policies’.

Yes, there is a dedicated Part 6 in that Lancet paper, and given the amount of BS peddling, I’m delimiting myself to citing one paragraph and contrasting it with something else (see below):

COVID-19 was very different from previous pandemics, and the next pandemic might be very different from COVID-19. Therefore, there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response [re-read the BS peddled by Ms. Stoltenberg et al. above—it’s the exact opposite of what that Lancet paper argues]. Although important lessons were learned from COVID-19, including that outcomes differed substantially across countries due to the different quality of their pandemic responses, it is important not to learn the wrong lessons [of course that’s the point of the Covid Mania]. For example, our analyses suggest that expected annual losses from an influenza pandemic would be about twice as high as those from a pandemic caused by a pathogen from the coronavirus family [so, every time the flu comes up, we *must* do the same BS as in the past five years].

I’ll spare us all more of this nonsense.

Bottom Lines

Mistakes were not made.

Everything that was done in the past 5 years was done deliberately, albeit its implementation may have been bungled by ‘public health’ officials out of sheer stupidity, incompetence, and/or malice.

The level of misunderstanding on part of the Norwegian Branch Covidians, however, is astounding, and I’m unsure if the invocation of the Norwegian contribution to the globalist shenanigans—PM Støre’s stint at the WHO, former PM Gro Harlem Brundtland (instrumental for the 1992 Earth Summit)—is actually helping them, that is, since the audience of this nonsensical open letter are the globalists who run CEPI and GAVI, there’s not much more to know.

Delusional as fuck, Ms. Stoltenberg and her ilk are calling to supplant the US role in ‘global public health’, and I do see my taxes go to any number of absurd boondoggles.

Needless to say, the majority of Norwegians will applaud this, if only because they’ve been indoctrinated very well since they were in kindergarten.

Buckle up, we’re in for a wild ride, in particular as reality-as-is will diverge increasingly from the globalist phantasies spouted by their sycophantic camp followers.

And, last but not least, don’t comply.