Norway's Public Health Officialdom Fakes Another Pro-Vaxx 'Study™'

How they do it? Simple--exclude the original modRNA poison/death juices, don't share the raw data, and presume 'unending' vaccine efficacy, which is why they do modelling despite all data

Two days ago—just in time for the Christmas season—Norway’s Institute of Public Health (IPH, orig. Folkehelseinstituttet) came out with a special present for their friends™ in Big Pharma (translation and emphases mine):

Lower Mortality for Fully Vaccinated People

Via the IPH website, 18 Dec. 2024 [source]

Previous studies from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, among others, have shown lower overall mortality among those who have taken the coronavirus vaccine compared to those who have not, but these studies have been of short duration. Researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health have now conducted a comprehensive registry study in which total mortality has been examined for the adult population in Norway, over 4.6 million people. In total, there were almost 133,000 deaths among these in the years 2021-2023. The study is not yet peer-reviewed, and can be read in full as a preprint.

‘COVID-19 mRNA-vaccination and all-cause mortality in the adult population in Norway during 2021-2023: a population-based cohort study’ (medrxiv.org)

‘We see that people who have taken the corona vaccine had a much lower mortality rate than those who have not taken the vaccine’, says Hanne Løvdal Gulseth. ‘This applies to all age groups, both younger and older.’

At this point, I’ll mention the bruahahaha on Norwegian X/Twitter about this because the link provided by the IPH doesn’t work.

Naturally, I was intrigued and wanted to read the paper; when I found out the link didn’t work, I went directly to medrxiv.org and looked for it.

What I found was…interesting.

The IPH’s Homepage is…Missing a Paper

The link provided by the IPH is this one:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.12.15.24319058v1.full.pdf

If you don’t click on the link on the IPH website, though, but go through medrxiv.org’s dedicated Covid-19 pre-print server and search for the term ‘Norway’:

https://connect.medrxiv.org/relate/content/181

This is how I found the following paper:

‘COVID-19 mRNA-vaccination and all-cause mortality in the adult population in Norway during 2021-2023: a population-based cohort study’

This is the link of it:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.12.15.24319058v1

Note it’s the same link as the one in the IPH news item.

Here’s that paper’s abstract, though:

Aim The aim of the study was to investigate the role of genetic variants in young patients (aged <50 years) with myocardial infarction (MI) and a family history of premature atherosclerosis.

Methods and Results The studied group consisted of 70 patients aged 26-49 (mean 43.1, SD ±4.3), 17 women and 53 men, with MI and with a family history of premature atherosclerosis, defined as MI or ischaemic stroke in first-degree relatives at age <65 years in women or <55 years in men. The total DNA was extracted from the peripheral blood samples. The targeted enrichment library was prepared and analyzed using the Next-Generation Sequencing method. Statistical analyses were performed using the R software package (http://www.r-project.org/). The results of sequencing were compared to data from the reference control population consisting of 597 people with no history of MI (418 women, 179 men) aged 18-83 (mean 40.5, SD ± 12.4) as a whole and after matching with a studied group by age and gender in a proportion 1:3 (210 people, 51 women, 159 men, aged 18-77, mean 42.1, SD ±10.6) using Propensity Score Matching. Risks associated with detected variants were evaluated using Fisher’s exact test based on the allelic frequencies of variants in both groups.

SYNE1 gene variant rs36215567 (NM_182961.4: c.20396+22A>G) occurs with a significantly higher incidence in the studied group when compared to the control population with OR 4.80 95%CI 1.43-14.45 (p=0.005) as well as when compared to the control population matched by age and gender OR 9.31 95%CI 1.64-95.41 (p=0.004). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of variants related to familial hypercholesterolemia such as LDLR c.667G>A, PCSK9 c.658-36G>A, and APOB c.12382G>A between both cohorts.

Conclusion A novel variant of the SYNE1 gene is associated with myocardial infarction in young patients with a family history of premature atherosclerosis.

Yep. You saw this correctly. It’s not that paper.

I Found the Paper on the Internet Archive

And what I read was…well, do read yourself—here is the link to the archived version:

Introduction:

Most countries worldwide have experienced excess mortality that coincides temporally with the COVID-19 mass vaccination campaigns. This has led to speculation on the potential long-term effects of the vaccines on mortality risk.

Methods:

The study was designed as a retrospective cohort study, and included all individuals aged ≥18 years living in Norway during January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2023. Individuals were categorized as either unvaccinated (received no doses), partially vaccinated (received one or two doses) or fully vaccinated (received three or more doses) from the date of vaccination and onwards. Age-stratified Poisson models were used to estimate incidence rate ratios of death (all causes) between vaccination groups, adjusting for sex, calendar time, county of residence and risk group status (nursing home resident or preexisting condition with increased risk of severe COVID-19). [so they did a model, even though they claim to have access to real-world data: why the model?]

Results:

The study included 4 645 910 individuals (49.8% women) with 132 963 deaths during follow-up. There was a higher proportion of individuals that were part of a risk group among fully vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals in all age groups, and a lower unadjusted rate of death: 51.5 vs 73.6 per 100 000 person years (py) among individuals aged 18-44 years, 295.1 vs 405.3 per 100 000 py among 45-64 years, and 3620.2 vs 4783.8 per 100 000 py among 65 years or older. The adjusted IRR of death for the same age groups were 0.42 (95% CI 0.38-0.47), 0.39 (95% CI 0.37-0.41) and 0.42 (95% CI 0.41-0.43), respectively. The differences in rate of death between vaccination groups were larger among men and peaked during 2022.

Conclusion:

Vaccinated individuals had a lower rate of all-cause death during 2021-2023 in Norway.

Looks strong, eh? It’s bunk, not even junk science, and it is, in my opinion, little wonder there’s a ‘problem’ with paper accessibility.

Faking ‘da Study™’, Pt. 1: Excluding the Original modRNA Poison/Death Juices

Here are my reasons for stating this, and first up is data input:

Data Source [sic]

The Emergency preparedness register for COVID-19 (Beredt C19) was established according to the Health Preparedness Act §2-4 to assess risk and implement measures during the COVID-19 pandemic(11). Beredt C19 receives registry data from mandatory Norwegian health registries and other relevant data sources at varying time intervals, commonly on a weekly basis [i.e., there is all the data a statistician might dream of].

For the current study, we used data originating from the Norwegian Immunisation Registry (SYSVAK), the National Population Register, the Norwegian Patient Registry (NPR) and the Norwegian Registry for Primary Health Care (NRPC), as described in detail below.

All data linkage and analyses were conducted within Beredt C19. Individual-level registry information was linked using the unique personal identification number (pseudonymized) given to every resident at birth or immigration.

If they have access to all the data (and then some), my question here is this: why the modelling? I mean, they have the relevant data, yet they still do modelling?

This smells…fishy.

Next up, definition of terms:

All covid-19 vaccinations in Norway are mandatorily reported to SYSVAK. Using the type of vaccine and date of vaccination we categorized all person time into “received no doses” (from here on referred to as “unvaccinated”), “received one or two doses of covid-19 vaccination” (from here on referred to as “partially vaccinated”) or “received 3 or more doses of covid-19 vaccination” (from here on referred to as “fully vaccinated”) [this looks o.k., too, esp. if one considers the ‘control group’ of ‘unvaccinated’ 18+ yo to be less than 10%]. Each individual was counted as vaccinated from the date of vaccination and onwards, and only changed groups upon receiving a new relevant dose [they claim not to do the shady 14-days-post-first-dose trick, so where’s the rub?]. Only doses with mRNA vaccines were included in the current study: BNT03/Comirnaty, CBA01/Omicron BA.1, CBA45/Comirnaty Omicron BA.4-5, CBB15/Comirnaty Omicron XBB.1.5, MOD03/ Spikevax, SBA01/ Spikevax Omicron BA.1, SBA45/Spikevax Omicron BA.4-5(12). These vaccine types accounted for 98.7% of all covid-19 vaccine doses registered in SYSVAK up until December 31, 2023. If an individual received a dose with another type of covid-19 vaccination, they were censored from the analysis on the day prior to this vaccination.

And this, dear readers, is the first revelation:

• the original BioNTech/Pfizer poison/death juice had the name ‘BNT162b2’ (it is absent from the above listing)

• the original Moderna poison/death juice had the name ‘mRNA-1273’ (and it’s also absent from the above listing)

Now I’m reproducing the latter half of the above paragraph to drive home this point:

Only doses with mRNA vaccines were included in the current study: BNT03/Comirnaty, CBA01/Omicron BA.1, CBA45/Comirnaty Omicron BA.4-5, CBB15/Comirnaty Omicron XBB.1.5, MOD03/ Spikevax, SBA01/ Spikevax Omicron BA.1, SBA45/Spikevax Omicron BA.4-5(12). These vaccine types accounted for 98.7% of all covid-19 vaccine doses registered in SYSVAK up until December 31, 2023. If an individual received a dose with another type of covid-19 vaccination, they were censored from the analysis on the day prior to this vaccination.

Here is the first chief aspect of how they faked the ‘study™’.

But wait, there’s more.

Faking ‘da Study™’, Pt. 2: Unrealistic Assumptions About ‘Vaccine Efficacy’

From the discussion of the ‘paper™’:

Vaccine effectiveness studies estimate that the protective effect of mRNA covid-19 vaccines against severe outcomes is significantly reduced six months after administration(17). In the current study we did not impose any time restriction on vaccination status [red flag #1: even though the authors know that ‘VE’ drops over time, they ‘did not impose any time restriction on vaccination status’, meaning that this—significant, I’d argue—methodological limitation was not addressed], meaning that an individual remained in their designated vaccination group either until they received a vaccination that changed this, or they were censored from follow-up. This approach was chosen to address the potential existence of detrimental long-term effects of vaccination on mortality risk [no comment].

Any potential protective effect of covid-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality is likely predicated on its prevention of serious outcomes following infection [not how this bill of goods was sold to the public]. We therefore do not expect a protective effect to be present outside of time periods where there is an ongoing spread of covid-19 [red flag #2]. The number of COVID-19 cases in Norway remained low during most of 2021 until the removal of most infection control measures during the autumn [red flag #3, this is false, as I’ve documented several times: mandates ended after Feb. 2022], with a subsequent peak during the winter of 2021/2022 [that would be Omicron] and multiple waves during 2022, which also coincided with the largest single-year drop in life expectancy in Norway since the Second World War(18, 19). There were 3 505 covid-19 associated deaths reported in Norway during 2022 [red flag #4: this is a new category that does not require a positive test], compared to 965 and 1 546 in 2021 and 2023, respectively(19), and in line with this 2022 is also the part of our study period where the difference in mortality between the fully vaccinated group and the unvaccinated group is the largest [this is easily stated as the original modRNA poison/death juices were excluded—see above]. This difference in mortality risk between the vaccination groups was more pronounced among men than women, which is likely related to the increased frequency of severe outcomes following COVID-19 among men(20, 21).

We expect the differences in mortality between the vaccination groups to wane over time, as the protective effect of the vaccine itself is reduced [red flag #5: whatever protection these modRNA poison/death juices offer wane within a few months] alongside the establishment of natural immunity in the general population. The chosen study period includes the time with the highest mortality during the covid-19 pandemic in Norway but does not include a calendar year with mortality rates closer to pre-pandemic levels and an absence of widespread covid-19 [red flag #6: no temporal control group]. This would have been interesting as a negative control with regards to differences between vaccination groups. As the population gets more booster doses, future work could also compare individuals that only received three doses to those that have regularly received additional boosters.

Sigh.

Faking ‘da Study™’, Pt. 3: No Chance of Looking at the Raw Data

Owing to data privacy regulations in Norway, the raw data cannot be shared. However, the data are available for research upon reasonable request to The Norwegian Institute of Public Health after approval from the Norwegian Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics and within the framework of the Norwegian data protection legislation and any required permission from Authorities.

So, da Science™ sayeth: trust us, we are the Experts™.

You may also file a request with our employers. Good luck.

I do hope that some people will do so; I also hope that the reviewers of the paper will look at this.

If they do their job, I suppose they’ll note that the original modRNA poison/death juices were excluded, hence there’s no way this ‘study™’ answers any questions.

Bottom Lines

This was painful to read, and the celebratory news item from the IPH is mind-numbingly absurd. Here’s a bit more from the news item:

One of the study’s strengths is that it covers virtually all of Norway’s adult population [why the modelling, then?], and that there is a long follow-up period for both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. The study was conducted by linking individual data from Norwegian health registries.

One weakness of the study is that we cannot rule out the possibility that there are systematic biases between those who choose to take the vaccine and those who do not [you imbeciles who didn’t don’t know shit from shinola]. Those who choose to take vaccines may generally be more conscious of their own health than those who do not vaccinate [projection], and may therefore have different risks of disease and death regardless of vaccination. At the same time, there are groups in society, such as refugees, who may have reduced access to vaccination and, for various reasons, an increased risk of death. This also applies to elderly people who are at the end of their lives and who are considered too weak to take the vaccine. There are also several groups in society who are less likely to contact the healthcare system for diagnosis and treatment, and therefore their medical risk conditions are not registered.

Does your head hurt yet?

The researchers linked data from the National Population Register, the National Vaccination Register (SYSVAK), the Norwegian Patient Register (NPR) and the Municipal Patient and User Register (KPR). The study only included people who had been vaccinated with the mRNA corona vaccine. These vaccines accounted for 98.7 per cent of all corona vaccine doses registered in Norway during the period.

And this, too, reinforces my conviction that this is a fake paper, and it’s well worth re-iterating what they did:

Only doses with mRNA vaccines were included in the current study: BNT03/Comirnaty, CBA01/Omicron BA.1, CBA45/Comirnaty Omicron BA.4-5, CBB15/Comirnaty Omicron XBB.1.5, MOD03/ Spikevax, SBA01/ Spikevax Omicron BA.1, SBA45/Spikevax Omicron BA.4-5(12). These vaccine types accounted for 98.7% of all covid-19 vaccine doses registered in SYSVAK up until December 31, 2023. If an individual received a dose with another type of covid-19 vaccination, they were censored from the analysis on the day prior to this vaccination.

• the original BioNTech/Pfizer poison/death juice had the name ‘BNT162b2’ (it is absent from the above listing)

• the original Moderna poison/death juice had the name ‘mRNA-1273’ (and it’s also absent from the above listing)

So, it doesn’t matter what these authors claim, because they excluded all those ‘received a dose with another type of covid-19 vaccination’.

The paper title is highly misleading, as it suggests a study of all modRNA poison/death juices, yet the pre-Omicron vaccinees were excluded.

If you received a bunch of the original poison/death juices (see above) and then got yourself a booster with an ‘updated’ or ‘adapted’ modRNA poison/death juice, this is what happened:

Each individual was counted as vaccinated from the date of vaccination and onwards, and only changed groups upon receiving a new relevant dose.

That data point was moved into the ‘survivor’ category.

Basically, the ‘study™’ tells one thing: Omicron was the ‘game-changer’ as it permits the powers-that-be to monkey with the data.

I doubt that no-one at the IPH noticed; so, how corrupt is public health officialdom?

There’s nothing else to note here.

Shame on the IPH.