Norway's Public Health Officials out w/New, Irrelevant 'Study™'

They've commenced the 'new' year in the same way as the 'old' one expired--plus Norway has secured 11m bird flu doses (two per resident), just in case you wondered if anyone learned a damned thing

This is getting too obnoxious not to talk about it—guess what: Norway’s public health officialdom has commenced the ‘new’ year in the same way it ended the ‘old’ one: by publishing yet another defective ‘study™’ hailing the Covid-19 injections.

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

If you thought that the intrepid vaxxniks over at the Institute of Public Health (IPH) would be taking a days off, think again—down the rabbit hole we go.

Sigh.

(As always, translations of non-English content, emphases, and [snark] mine.)

Covid (the illness) After Omicron

Thus the title of a recent press release by the IPH dated 10 Jan. 2024.

People who had COVID-19 for the first time during the omicron wave experienced more memory problems, brain fog, and fatigue afterwards than people who were not infected. This is according to a new study from IPH.

I’ll spare us both (most of) the remainder of the press release—and we’ll go directly to the ‘study™’, entitled, ‘Post-COVID symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 omicron infection and the effect of booster vaccination: A population-based cohort study’, which appeared [sic] in Vaccine, vol. 47 (15 Feb. 2025).

Methods

We conducted a population-based prospective study based on four questionnaire-based cohorts linked to national health registries. Our study includes female and male participants aged 11–80 years from The Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study, The Norwegian Influenza Pregnancy Cohort, The Senior Cohort, and The Young Adult Cohort. All participants registered presence of 22 COVID-related symptoms irrespective of infection and vaccination status.

Translation: we sent out questionnaires and asked people to self-report symptoms. This is the weakest kind of data input.

Results

The study sample includes more than 31,000 uninfected and 26,000 Omicron infected subjects. Among infected subjects, 12% were vaccinated with two doses >130 days before the primary infection (median 154 days) but had not received a third dose, while 76 % had received a third (booster) dose (median 40 days before infection). Among those with two doses only, the excess risk for new symptoms after infection (vs. no infection) were up to 15% for women and 9% for men. Among infected subjects with recent booster dose, the corresponding excess risks were 7% among women and up to 5% among men. The largest risk differences after recent booster vaccination were seen for poor memory, brain fog, and fatigue. Post-COVID symptoms were more often detected among young and middle-aged adults than among adolescents and older age groups.

Conclusion

Recent booster vaccination before infection substantially reduced both neurocognitive and cardiorespiratory symptoms occurring at least 3 months after Omicron infection.

A few brief things:

Comparing, once more, ‘fully vaccinated’ (2 doses) and ‘boosted’ (3 doses) with each other is—pointless, unless you would like to hype the modRNA poison/death juice while pretending to ‘do the Science™ thing’.

Mission accomplished.

The ‘paper™’ itself might only have passed ‘peer-review™’ as all the referees are similarly ‘all-in’ on the Covid scam. My personal guess is that submissions like these are refereed by likeminded people who will not spot the most obvious problems.

You know, like the misleading claim that the intrepid researchers found:

Recent booster vaccination before infection substantially reduced…occurring at least 3 months after Omicron infection.

See how easy this is? By comparing self-reported ‘symptoms’ of ‘boosted’ to 2-dose-only people and simply not having a control group, you can make that claim look as if it is true.

The main question is—how on earth didn’t the referees spot this?

Gems from the ‘Paper™’

I’ve seen quite a bit of piss-poor studies in recent years, but this paper ranks among the worst in terms of quality and, yes, writing style. Take the following examples as illustrative of the dire need to STEM researchers to either take writing classes or stop writing:

[2.4. Other Variables] …participants were asked about new respiratory symptoms and whether they had been “barely ill”, “moderately ill”, or “very ill”. We defined “barely ill” as mild illness and the remaining groups as moderate to severe illness. Asymptomatic cases, defined as subjects who tested positive but did not report any respiratory symptoms, were assigned to the group with mild illness due to low occurrences…

Setting aside the idiosyncratic ‘definition™’ here, the devil is revealed in the details: ‘asymptomatic’ cases were simply placed in the ‘mild illness’ category, perhaps to uphold the illusion that if you’re not ill but ‘test positive™’, you’re still counted as a ‘case™’. Talk about meddling with data inputs.

[2.5. Statistical Analysis] …we did several subsample analyses examining the effects of having had a 3rd (booster) vaccine dose before infection vs. 2 doses >130 days prior to infection…We also did a direct comparison of 3 vs. 2 doses >130 days before infection among vaccinated and infected subjects. This approach allowed us to assess the impact of booster vaccination relative to a group who were eligible for a third dose, but had not received it, and therefore likely had waned immunity.

See, there’s no need to check, say, for natural immunity as the term ‘unvaccinated’ or ‘vaccination status’ is quite absent from this ‘paper™’. Note also the use of commonly-known terms, such as ‘immunity’, by which is meant ‘vaccine-induced immunity’, but the casual reader might simply use the common understanding. That latter ‘direct comparison’ was merely between 2-dose-recipients who had not yet taken a third of the modRNA poison/death juice. This isn’t even apples vs. oranges levels of ‘comparison’, it’s way worse.

One more example from the ‘paper™’ to wrap this up, and it’s from the caption of Fig. 2 about the ‘Inclusion of study subjects’:

Our study sample included 61% female and 39% male subjects…Among subjects aged 18 years or older, 98% had received at least two vaccine doses by January 1st, 2022 (94% in the total sample).

Never mind putting together a study that reflects the population (male/female ratio), never mind a control group of ‘unvaccinated’ people.

Basically, this ‘paper™’ isn’t just shoddy, it’s also a strange set-up to prove a point that is both moot and cannot be falsified at the same time: neither do Omicron or the original modRNA poison/death juice composition play any role any longer nor could one replicate the study results due to a) continued vaccination campaigns and b) the sustained exclusion of any control group also points to the fact that—we wouldn’t have anything to compare either result to.

A Few More Words from the Authors

That IPH press release has a few words from the lead or corresponding author, the Institute of Public Health’s very own Ida Caspersen:

‘Many people can experience challenges with memory and fatigue for reasons other than corona infection [but it can’t be the vaxx, right?]. That’s why it was important for us to compare how often the same symptoms occur in both people who have been infected and those who have not. The figures show an excess frequency of seven per cent among those who have had omicron during the period,’ says Ida Caspersen, first author of the study and researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health…

‘The new [sic] results show that the proportion of people reporting late effects after a first-time Omicron infection was much lower than after infection with previous corona variants in 2020. However, far more people were infected with Omicron, so the extent of reported late effects was still greater,’ says Caspersen.

A bit further down, there is this gem:

The results show that people who had recently received a third dose of the vaccine (booster dose), before they were infected, had fewer long-term symptoms compared to those who had not taken a booster dose [i.e., took only 2 jabs]. A recent booster dose appeared to reduce several types of late effects, such as memory problems, brain fog and fatigue. The duration of this protection is uncertain.

‘Our findings show that the offer of a booster dose to adults came at a very good time before the big wave of Omicron infections, and helped to reduce the incidence of late effects,’ says project manager and doctor Lill Trogstad at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health.

See, there you have it—the good folks over at the Institute of Public Health published a study, interviewed themselves for a press release, and patted on their backs.

Truth be told, there are ‘strengths’ and ‘limitations’ discussed:

One of the limitations of the study is that the researchers could not assess the severity of the reported symptoms [which is why they categorised as ‘light’, ‘moderate’, and ‘severe’, right?]. This study investigated the incidence of late effects after being infected with corona for the first time during the omicron wave in early 2022. How being infected with corona several times affects the incidence and severity of late effects has not been investigated in this study. The researchers have also not investigated how long the protection of the third vaccine dose lasts, or the importance of vaccination with additional doses.

‘We don’t yet know how serious the reported sequelae are or how long they last. We are in the process of investigating this,’ says Trogstad.

I’m so relieved you’re ‘in the process of investigating this’, esp. as any new findings about these things will have zero bearing on anything as the vaxx status and the variants have moved on. I doubt we need any more such ‘studies™’ about this topic, that is, unless you’d have an unvaccinated control group.

‘In this study, we have investigated whether people who were infected with corona for the first time experienced late symptoms. We don’t yet know what it will be like in a population that has had repeated infections,’ Trogstad emphasises.

Well, that depends on a few other variables to study, don’t we all think?

Bottom Lines

Given my personal experience with academia etc., I suppose these are all earnest, if very vaxx-believing researchers who would never question the ‘Pandemic™’ narrative.

They will also have a strong vested interest in confirming, ex post facto, the correctness of their employer’s position.

Speaking of these matters, let’s not forget where these public health officials come from: the last rows of any class year’s graduates who failed to find jobs anywhere else.

Most newly-graduated physicians enter the medical profession either in hospitals (residency, specialisation) or as GPs. The very few top-performers might seek international careers in the most renowned medical research centres. Those on the lower rungs of ability and achievement—who perhaps more adamantly insist that they are doctors—end up as county medical officials or elsewhere in the state bureaucracy. Like at the Institute of Public Health.

Now, I don’t know if public health officials get anything out of writing ‘guidelines’ or ‘standards of care’ for their (better) peers practicing medicine. I wouldn’t be surprised.

So, in the end, what do we make of this strangely misleading, factually irrelevant, and shoddily done ‘study™’?

I think we’ve made enough ‘fun’ with this ‘news item’.

Don’t be sad you wasted a few minutes going through the ‘paper™’ with me: it also shows the continued ignorance of reality by public health officialdom.

Speaking of the IPH once more, well, guess what these vaxxniks are up to:

The Institute of Public Health (IPH) has secured an option for 11 million doses of vaccine against bird flu in the event of a pandemic.

‘We have agreements with two manufacturers for the delivery of 11 million doses of vaccine against a possible new pandemic influenza virus,’ Preben Aavitsland of the IPH told NRK.

VG covered the story first.

This will provide two doses for everyone in Norway.

The IPH expects the first vaccines to be delivered four to six months after the WHO declares a possible new pandemic.

Two final things here: first, I’ll pass.

Second, the same people who screwed up the 2009/10 Swine Flu Pandemic led the public health response in 2020—and they’re at it once more.

Covid in Norway--Vaxx Injuries Edition: Pandemrix (2009 swine flu) caused a fraction of AEs and was shut down: this time *is* different, ain't it?

So, how much did ‘we’ all learn from the Covid years?