Excess Mortality in Norway Triggers Parliamentary Enquiry
No worries, it's just next-stage-gaslighting as the jabs aren't questioned and no-one seems to bother checking what public health officialdom said a year ago
Reference is made to this article from two days ago:
Readers may well remember that I was quite…’reserved’ about whatever prospects, but I now stand (at least partially) corrected: it appears that Jan-Eirik Wilthil’s piece attracted quite a bit of attention, if a follow-up article that appeared yesterday is any indication.
Still, as I shall detail with reference to specifics in the bottom lines, this is a farce. Mr. Wilthil continues not to ask pointed questions (perhaps he does, privately, but that doesn’t do any good), hence the below is, I’d argue, one more distraction.
Therefore, here follows this one in my translation, emphases.
Corona Researcher: ‘I Warned of High Death Tolls’
By Jan-Eirik WIlthil, NRK, 7 March 2024 [source]
As early as 2022, Covid researcher Arne Søraas warned that Norway would experience higher mortality in the population. Just a few months later, his grim prediction came true.
Recently, NRK reported [that’s the piece we discussed two days ago, linked above] on a significant excess mortality among young people in Norway. Calculations carried out by researchers show that more people aged 0-59 have lost their lives in the last two years than the trend would suggest.
‘It’s a Tragedy’
Researcher and infectious disease specialist Arne Søraas is one of several who have pointed to the after-effects of Covid-19 infection as the most likely cause [still can’t say out loud the unthinkable, eh?].
As early as November 2022, he warned [I’ll discuss this in the bottom lines] of what he feared would come:
I said that we would experience higher mortality and lower life expectancy if we let the virus spread freely. Now we see that it also happens among young people. It is tragic.
At the time, the researcher pointed to a large study which showed that the risk of becoming seriously ill and dying increases every time you are infected with the coronavirus [as if ‘the virus’ circulating right now is the same as four years ago].
If the results of this study hold true, history will judge those who now say that the only thing left to do is let the virus loose. It won't be pleasant.
Arne Søraas, researcher and infectious diseases medicine, nrk.no/15 Nov. 2022
Should Lead to A Full Clean-up
At the time, the Institute of Public Health pointed to what they believed to be weaknesses in the study, and indicated that there was great uncertainty about the extent and severity of any after-effects of Covid-19.
Søraas believes that the high mortality must have consequences, if it turns out that after-effects of Covid-19 are the cause:
It should lead to a full washing up. A review of the decisions that were made, and whether anything could have been done differently [hear, hear].
News about the high mortality among young people has made an impression on the researcher:
I am a doctor, and our goal is to reduce mortality. It is very sad. I think of all those concerned, and of how much could have been avoided. It gives me a feeling of having failed [it’s a start].
Demands Answers from the Minister of Health
The increased mortality among young people has also attracted attention among politicians. Morten Wold of the Fremskrittspartiet [progressive party] in the Storting’s Health and Care Committee is now demanding answers from the Minister of Health.
It is a serious situation, and the minister bears ultimate responsibility. Norwegian health authorities should take in available research from other skilled environments, so that we can get answers to why there is increased mortality among young people after the pandemic [I won’t hold my breath, but the way this is phrased is highly dubious: a career politician bearing responsibility for whatever public health officialdom ‘recommended’? I mean, sure, a political reckoning is one thing (and it will come), but we must also be talking about the abuse of public trust carried out by public health ‘professionals’]
Fagdirektor [section chief] Preben Aavitsland stated as recently as January this year that IPH places the greatest emphasis on the acute effects, which lead to hospitalisation, the intensive care unit, or death.
Wold says he understands that health authorities must focus on the acute consequences, but believes that IPH must also assess the effect Covid sequelae has on public health:
I think it is strange. Norwegians trust the health authorities, in almost every context [speak for yourself, Mr. Wold]. They follow the advice that comes [how’s that working out for you, dear Norwegians? I’m sorry about this mess, but abdicating personal responsibility to, effectively, the low-tier careerists staffing such agencies is not a good idea]. Then it is expected that IPH takes over what is available from other research, and implements this in its work, so that it also becomes a basis for the advice IPH gives to Norwegian citizens [so much word salad here].
He has now sent two written questions to the Minister of Health, Ingvild Kjerkol. Wold believes the situation requires quick action, and refers to the transportation sector which has fast-working commissions to reduce the death toll. Wold believes this is an approach that can also be relevant in the health sector, under special circumstances:
I find it disturbing. Mortality among relatively young people has slowly but surely decreased over many years. Right after the pandemic, you see that deaths suddenly rise. There must be a reason for that.
IPH: ‘We take Covid Sequelae into Account’
The Institute of Public Health denies that they do not follow international research:
‘We naturally take into account well-documented knowledge about late sequelae, including our own research, when we prepare assessments and advice’, says fagdirektor Preben Aavitsland.
He emphasises that IPH does not pay less attention to late effects, but that it is more about how [surprise, eh?] they assess the research around the topic:
We aim to constantly describe this basis more clearly and in more detail, and will continue to do so.
At this point, I’ll stop because the remainder of Mr. Wilthil’s follow-up piece is the laundry list of what fagdirektors Aavitsland and Gulseth said in the article published two days ago.
Parliamentary Enquiries to the Health Ministry
Instead, here’s a translation of the enquiries by Mr. Wold, as reported by NRK in today’s piece. Before you read on, note that this is a canard, or a deflection, because there’s one issue that must not be named as a possible issue (care to guess?).
Question 1 by Morten Wold
Considering the recent overview of excess mortality among young people in Norway and concerns about Covid-19 as a possible cause, how does the minister plan to address this development to protect public health, especially considering the potential long-term effects of the pandemic?
Justification
For the first time in over twenty years, excess mortality has been recorded among young people in Norway, with a marked increase in deaths in the 20-39 age group since the pandemic began. Statistician Richard Aubrey White from IPH points to Covid-19 as a likely explanation, citing studies that show an increased risk of death after infection.
This development has caused concern among researchers and health professionals, given that previous trends showed a continuous decline in mortality among young people. IPH confirms the excess mortality, but is waiting for more thorough analyses to determine the causes. This phenomenon signals potentially serious public health consequences of the pandemic, which may not have been fully recognised in current infection control strategies.
Question 2 by Morten Wold
What will the Minister of Health do to acquire a knowledge base that makes it possible to assure the Norwegian people that we will not experience a new increase in mortality and deaths after the next wave of Covid-19?
Justification
As early as 2022 [sic], scientific studies indicated that Covid-19 could lead to increased mortality in the months following acute illness. These studies also showed an increase in the incidence of serious diseases, including cardiovascular disease. As a consequence, Norwegian researchers warned of a potential increase in mortality in Norway.
The figures for 2022 from the Cause of Death Register and for 2023 from the Population Register now show a strong increase in the number of deaths, as was warned about. It is estimated that the excess mortality was over 1,800 people due to cardiovascular diseases alone in 2022 and over 500 people under the age of 60 in 2023. Covid-19 also increases the risk of long-term illnesses/diseases, such as, e.g., poorer memory.
This observed excess mortality is worrying, especially as it breaks a more than 20-year-long trend of falling mortality in Norway. This requires rapid action, as many deaths can potentially be prevented with the right knowledge [that’s actually correct, as far as I can see]. In the transport sector, fast-acting commissions have been effective in reducing death tolls, an approach that may also be relevant in the health sector under special circumstances [this is highly dangerous as it will likely render whatever measures will be taken ‘extraordinary’, i.e., beyond the rule of law].
We are now probably between two waves of Covid-19 [aren’t we always?] and there is reason to fear that we will also see an increase in the death toll in the next Covid-19 wave. It is important for the Storting to know that, before the next wave of Covid-19, the Minister of Health has secured sufficient knowledge about the increase in mortality that we are now seeing in Norway, so that this time she has a good enough decision-making basis for any advice to the population on infection prevention. It is unfortunate that a long time passes without us getting clarity on why hundreds or thousands of Norwegians die unexpectedly, especially when several researchers believe that the cause can be prevented by simple measures.
Bottom Lines
First of all, I maintain my stance that this is a kind of ‘limited hand-out’.
Sure, Mr. Wilthil’s reporting two days ago—remember, this piece appeared on the front page of state broadcaster NRK—received some attention, and that’s more than warranted. It also caused at least one politician to peruse his parliamentary rights of oversight and enquiry.
Yet, the ‘questions’ asked by Mr. Wold are so anodyne—and, dare I add: ignorant—that it boggles the mind. Mr. Wold’s concerns are with future infection control measures, as opposed to getting to the bottom of the underlying causes.
It’s quite interesting to see vaxx hawk Arne Søraas paraded as a kind of ‘messiah’ on post-Covid sequelae, to be blunt. After all, the good Dr. Søraas has proved himself to be among the more notorious vaxx hawks, as reported last autumn:
The bigger issue than (repeat) misgivings about individual public health officials (here’s looking at you, Preben), however, is that whatever may or may not result from Mr. Wold’s enquiries is the following notion:
If one asks vaxx hawks only—and they’re all vaxx hawks at the IPH—they will, naturally gravitate towards never asking themselves, anyone else, or read papers to the contrary about vaccines in general and the Covid modRNA shots in particular. This question will never cross their minds.
I’m not here to hand out infection control advice, but I shall conclude in the following way: the above piece is yet more evidence that the powers that be are working overtime to obscure their role in these shenanigans, try to prevent accountability (aided and abetted by journalists who refuse to ask relevant questions), and rewrite what transpired in the past four years.
I’ll delimit myself to quoting a few choice excerpts from a year ago:
Assistant Director-General for Health Espen Rostrup Nakstad: ‘There are as many hospitalisations with respiratory infections in March 2023 as there are in a normal year.’
Call me a cynic, but that’s a weird way of defining ‘stable’, and there’s also the issue of a ‘normal’ year leading to unprecedented levels of excess mortality. Jus’ sayin’.
Minister of Health and Care Services Ingvild Kjerkol (Labour) is also prepared for more waves: ‘I am pleased that our everyday lives have largely returned to normal. At the same time, we are prepared for new waves of the coronavirus, when and if the situation should change. We have a current strategy for handling the situation, which we are following up and adjusting as needed.
And here you can observe the disingenuous nature of Mr. Wold’s sternly-worded (yes, that’s sarcasm) enquiry to, well, Ms. Kjerkol: there’s a ‘current strategy’ that is ‘adjusted as needed’. Strange that no-one deemed adjustments necessary until some rank-and-file statistician spoke out. Lo and behold, now the knives are drawn. What a pathetic circus.
Speaking of pathetic shenanigans, here’s one more quote from Mr. Nakstad to drive home this point:
Nakstad believes that the current stable and calm situation is due to one factor in particular: ‘We have achieved a high degree of population immunity after vaccination and disease [watch the gaslighting: ‘immunity after vaccination and disease’]. I think population immunity will strengthen further in 2023 around Norway and the world. As a result, we will see fewer and fewer waves of hospitalisations, although we may see some waves of infection locally and internationally.’
Did you spot the ‘let’s cheer the modRNA injections once more’?
Strangely, these days, no-one wants to talk about the jabs anymore in this context, and I do ‘wonder’ (yes, more sarcasm) why that might be.
One final thing to remember here:
Nakstad says: ‘We see signs that the mortality rate in the population right now is probably lower than before the pandemic. This indicates that there is no dramatic increase in infection at the moment, which is of course a good sign.
This is what I wrote a year ago: I’m not a public health official, but this is an illogical and, above all, unfounded assertion; classic gaslighting, in my opinion.
Now the facts—significant excess mortality—are in, and there’s no question about these issues I just quoted to you?
I suppose the final question I’m asking myself these days is: should I—or any other (Norwegian) reader of these pages—send Mr. Wilthil an email with a few of these quotes? I haven’t made up my mind, but two days ago he solicited input, but the last few times I bothered to write to NRK ‘journos’ I never received answers…
(And if you’re asking why, here’s my ‘guess’: you see, on 27 Jan. 2024, one NRK ‘journo’, Julie Haugen Egge, published another unreflected pro-vaxx—here: HPV injection ‘Gardasil’—piece that cheered on HPV jabs for children, boys and girls, from grade 7 onwards; she omitted the little factoid that ovarian cancer is a STD, hence I asked her why she omitted this fact—but for whatever reason, she didn’t answer…)
Covid doesn't kill young people.
That is all.
Great article. I would say I enjoy reading your articles about the situation in Norway but perhaps, given the context enjoy is the wrong word. So I’ll go with I find them enlightening and educational.
I feel it is a start but a good start. We all know what is causing part of the issue. But if they continue to say it’s Covid, well are they saying the vaccines don’t work as advertised? What does this mean for informed consent etc etc
Also the gene therapy tech injects the live virus spike protein so there’s a big question as to why on earth we would do that and why would we inject it into the systemic blood stream rather than the localised injection site (arm and associated lymph nodes) so it can attack every organ in the body.
Then they have to somehow prove it’s still Covid which in itself will bring huge question marks …. Surely. …. Ie who is going to jail for funding gain of function research in a facility known to be at a BL 2 level of security rather than the required BL 4 (ie all the Rand Paul stuff). Once they start down that path, it becomes inevitable those discussions need to take place.
As for writing to the journalists. I wrote an 80 page letter with over 240 links to empirical data, the control of scientific and media institutions, peer reviewed science etc etc etc. I sent it to a load of journalists and politicians at the beginning of January. But no reply. Even when I made complaints to their organisations for continuing to spread disinformation about the safety and efficacy.
I figure it shows they know and have known for a long time to me. How could they not when you stop and think about it. I thought I would show them something they don’t understand but they do. So you’ll probably get nothing back but there’s an historical record you can share with the world. That’s important I suppose.