Norwegian 'Experts™' Answer Questions, Such as 'Should I Get Another Jab?'

A supremely absurd testament of idiotic questions and even more moronic answers, courtesy of Norwegian state broadcaster and public health officialdom. It's 2024, people. Sigh.

Sigh. This one is particularly painful to address, because I’ve done this before. Specifically, in early November 2023, Norwegian state broadcaster NRK convened a ‘expert™’ panel to provide ‘answers’ to the burning question, ‘should I get yet another modRNA booster’:

Covid in Norway: A Pandemic for All Seasons

We note, in passing, albeit not without contempt, that Jan-Erik Wilthil—the ‘journo™’ who is ‘doing’ this kind of ‘reporting™’ for NRK—may very well consider what he’s doing, well, ‘doing journalism™’. As an aside, he still keeps a ‘how am I doing’ box at the bottom of his Covid-related pieces, asking for input for readers (but he never bothered to answer my such emails, which is why I stopped sending them).

So, today, I present you with yet another testament to the limitations of humanity. Translation, [inside commentary], and emphases mine, as are the bottom lines. Sigh.

---

The Experts Answer: Should Young People Take the Corona Vaccine?

How dangerous is COVID-19 now? And is another injection really necessary? Read the answers from our experts.

By Jan-Erik Wilthil, NRK, 22 Aug. 2024 [source]

‘Will the vaccines be free for young and healthy people? Given that the risk of long COVID is so high, and increases every time you get infected, what is the rationale for not encouraging young people to get vaccinated?’

These are the question from some of our readers. NRK gathered a panel of experts [no irony there] to answer questions about COVID-19 and the vaccine [as if there was but one to dominate them all]. You can read their answers at the bottom of the article.

Health Risks for the Elderly

In a few weeks, many elderly people will be offered another dose of the corona vaccine. Last year, many people at risk chose to skip the vaccine, despite the Institute for Public Health’s recommendations [wise choice].

Covid-19 remains a serious health risk for the elderly and vulnerable.

Last year alone, the disease claimed the lives of 1,546 Norwegians, and recent research suggests that COVID-19 is a far more dangerous disease than influenza.

[This is, of course, BS and nothing but exemplary gaslighting galore because Norway has invented the category of ‘Covid-associated deaths’ in 2023 to bury the probable cause(s) of death, because this is how public health officialdom determines what that is:

Covid-19-associated deaths are defined as deaths where COVID-19 is indicated as an underlying or contributing cause on the death certificate…previously only deaths with a positive test were included…deaths without a positive test are now also included.

I’ve discussed this at some length back in autumn 2023, but it appears this little piece of, of course useless information, has since escaped attention of the likes of our intrepid and cantankerous ‘journo’ Jan-Erik Wilthil.]

[Here follows a link to another piece by journo Wilthil, which appeared earlier yesterday and featured Jörn Klein, professor of medicine at the U of Southeast Norway; professor Klein is, of course, strongly pro-vaccine (of any type) and claimed that ‘Covid is much more dangerous than the flu’, which is contradicted by both real-life experiences and the assessment to the contrary from the German Robert Koch Institute. Moreover, the piece is about drastically reduced willingness of ‘elderly’ and ‘vulnerable’ people to actually take any more Covid jabs, as exemplified by this graph:

It shows the number of mod-RNA jabs vs. Covid-19 (sic) given to various age brackets from 2021-23; perhaps there is some hope left.]

At the same time, the virus is developing at a rapid pace, and new and more infectious variants are constantly emerging. As recently as this summer, Norway experienced a new upsurge in infection [which caused a huge yawn among the ‘experts™’, but, hey, if journo™ Wilthil says so, who am I to contradict this glamorous authority].

In other words, the pandemic is far from over, and many questions remain unanswered.

The comment field is now closed. If you didn’t have time to submit your own question, you may still benefit from reading the answers below [well, we’ll see about that, won’t we?].

Meet Our Expert Panel

The experts have different backgrounds and do not necessarily agree on everything. Here you can read a brief description of the experts:

• Professor Jörn Klein, professor of microbiology, epidemiology, and infection control at the University of Southeast Norway; programme director for Norway’s only master’s degree programme in infection control [awesome]; member of the national infection control board.

• Professor Grundveig Grødeland, professor of immunology at the University of Oslo; director of the Center for Pandemics and One-Health Research (P1H) at the U of Oslo [professor Grødeland is also, expectably, exclusionary pro-vaccines, and she’s among those who developed, and are currently testing, a ‘new vaccine against bird flu’]

• Professor Anne Spurkland, an immunologist and professor of anatomy at the University of Oslo; an expert [sic, and lol] on how the body’s immune system works; recipient of the Research Council of Norway’s Dissemination Prize in 2021 for her public education about the immune system [she’s been on the ‘expert™’ panel last time around, cf. the top-linked article].

---

Ask an Expert—Q&A

There were quite some questions asked, and answers (of sorts) provided by this laudable panel of ‘experts™’. A total of 39 questions were posed with 37 receiving answers. In what follows below, I have endeavoured to provide you with translations (and biting commentary) of what I consider the most telling (moronic) ones, that is, apart from the BS spouted in the above ‘piece’. Sigh.

I think that my favourite exchange is this one below about tests:

Jakob Rypdal: Can the rapid tests be trusted to detect the new variants of COVID-19? Can these tests be trusted?

Anne Spurkland *expert: This is a good question! If the rapid test shows a positive result (and the control line on the test is in place), then the test is positive [we’ve seen ‘Pandemic™’ management by tautology before].

If, on the other hand, you get a negative test, it is still possible that you have a corona infection [see, the test can also be meaningless; is this the moment to bring up Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn on the impossibility of falsification?]. The sample must be taken both from the back of the throat and from the nose. Put the swab first in the back of the throat and then in the nose before putting it in the test tube.

If you tested negative on the rapid test but have persistent symptoms, it may be a good idea to test several days in a row to see if you still have a positive corona test [nevermind treating anything there, the good ‘professor of basic medical science’ (that’s her job title) says; also, this is now the third statement about the test Prof. Spurkland makes—it’s symptoms that matter, not the positive or negative test; I suppose we may also pick any of the above answers].

But the question is also whether the coronavirus variants are picked up equally well by the rapid tests [ah, Prof. Spurkland remembered the question, good for Mr. Rypdal, I suppose]. I haven’t seen any direct checks of the latest variants, but earlier variants were picked up by the rapid tests [oopsie, I got excited too early; so, poor Mr. Rypdal never received an answer, but at the very least, we’ve seen Prof. Spurkland intellectually and morally wet herself thoroughly (although it remains up for debate whether she noticed; I know I did]

That was very painful, eh? It quickly got worse, way worse, before too long, though, and we’ll go through three more questions and answers below. Sigh.

Bente H.: Why isn’t the vaccine recommended for all groups, as too little is known about the risk of harm from repeated infections? [I can only say: speak for yourself; I had tested positive (whatever that means) for ‘Covid’ once and didn’t even come down with as much as a cold since 2019…] It is known that the vaccine reduces the risk of Long COVID, and it is known that the effect of the vaccine decreases. A new dose is recommended to reduce the risk for vulnerable groups, but not to reduce the risk of Long COVID. Why is there no concern about Long COVID?

Gunnveig Grødeland *expert: With all vaccinations, there is a possibility of side effects, and the expected benefit must be weighed against possible side effects [oh, look, prof. Grødeland has returned to reality]. What we do know about immunisation [sic, remember, Bente H. said ‘the effect of the vaccine decreases’, i.e., what does the word immunisation mean?] and Long COVID is that up to 3 doses reduce the likelihood of getting it [Long Covid]. We don’t know whether more doses will make a difference, nor do we know whether vaccination after infection will make a difference [oh, signs and wonders, we don’t know that; what do we know?]. We also know that there is a lower likelihood of getting long COVID now compared to before [because…virtually everyone had the ‘infection’ that the jabs ostensibly protected against, right? Speaking of circular reasoning (sic), note the next sentence]. When you write that the effect of the vaccine decreases, this is not entirely true. It’s true for people over the age of 65, because the immune system then has a reduced ability to form good responses [it sucks to be ‘over the age of 65, is what she says]. For healthy people under the age of 65, we know that the protection that was formed against serious illness after the basic vaccination lasts for a long time, and that this will be maintained when we are infected with the virus [still spouting that nonsense of ‘hybrid immunity’, which the Qatar study by Altarawhneh et al. (NEJM 2022, 387:21-34, doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2203965) essentially proves; see also here]. It is therefore unclear whether healthy adults under the age of 65 receive any particularly increased protection from multiple doses [and here we go: Prof. Grødeland is pro-vaxx until the waters get too hot]. I think it is well founded when the IPH does not recommend boosters for healthy people under the age of 65.

So, now we’ve seen the second ‘expert™’ to perform about as crappy as the first one. Sadly, we’ll have to read on. Sigh.

Jen Ry: I have only had Covid once that I know of (in early 2022) and developed Long Covid afterwards. I have taken 3 vaccines, the first of which (AZ) gave me severe side effects and I was sick for several weeks [I’ve heard this from several people who took the poison from AstraZeneca]. Not sure if this started the whole Long Covid process, but the infection definitely made me much worse.

I haven’t dared to take new vaccines after my third [which begs the question: if jab #1 gave you ‘severe side effects’ and you were ‘sick for several weeks’, why did you take jabs #2 and #3?], as I don’t want to worsen my condition. At the same time, I’m terrified of getting infected and worse. Would it be recommended to take the vaccine this autumn with that background information? [guess what the jabniks will say…] Or can I hope I’m ‘immune’ since I haven’t been infected since, even though I’ve been in contact with infected people? (I’m 27 years old). [remember: the safe and effective™ modRNA injections once were almost 100% effective against transmission and infection, the manufacturers claimed]

Anne Spurkland *expert: I don’t quite understand the timeline here, the vaccinations started in winter 2021. The AZ vaccinations were stopped in March 2021, so you finished the vaccinations sometime during 2021, but still had ailments after the AZ vaccine (?). And Covid infection in early 2022 made these symptoms worse? [note that this person claims to be 27 years now, which made him or her 24 three years ago, while in Q1 of 2021, risk groups were prioritised, i.e., Jen Ry either is a (former?) healthcare professional and/or ‘cheated’ his or her way to a jab appointment (talk about bad karma) or belongs to a ‘risk group’ (none of these considerations crosses the *expert’s mind); it’s impossible to miss the cognitive dissonance here]

You are young, don’t belong to any risk group, and it is therefore not recommended that you take a booster vaccine. So I think you can settle for that. You are hopefully immune enough for your immune system to cope with a new corona infection without you becoming very ill.

The primary purpose of the booster vaccine [now] is to avoid severe COVID-19 in people in the risk groups.

That was painful on many levels, but one we must press.

Amalie: I am a 32 year-old woman who has not taken the vaccine [kudos for mustering the courage to ask; are you out of your mind for still trusting these ‘experts™’?], have had Covid two times (maybe more? But in any case very mild). What is the IPH’s advice to me? (There is nothing about unvaccinated outside the risk group on their website)

And what is your advice to me :) should I take the vaccine now?

Anne Spurkland *expert: The point of a vaccine is to prepare the body for a possible infection. Since you’ve chosen not to vaccinate until now, and rather face the coronavirus without preparation (and have had Covid twice), there’s no reason to vaccinate now.

You are outside the risk group and are under the age of 65, so it is not recommended to take the vaccine for the group you belong to anyway.

This is clearly explained on the IPH’s pages on coronavirus vaccination.

Well, that settles this issue pretty clearly, eh?

I’ll provide two more such Q&A combo, the one below mainly because it relates to (US, but also other) universities still (!!!) mandating another shot of any Covid injection, which troubles a young man in his late 20s:

Henrik F.: I’m going on an extended stay to the US and I’m asked [sic] by the university to take a third jab against covid. There are a few options to decline, but it seems a bit strict. Otherwise, I’m in my late 20s and healthy. Would you recommend the third vaccine or not? If so, why (not)?

Gunnveig Grødeland *expert: I don’t see any good biological arguments in favour of you taking a third vaccine dose, but I myself would probably be pragmatic enough to think that if you have to, it’s easier to take the third one than to try to argue with the university in the US :-) [thank you for stating, clearly for once, that a third jab isn’t necessary or indicated but that you’d take one rather ‘than try to argue’: both Q and A are idiotic, to say the least, esp. in light of the what follows the ill-placed emoji] The argument against taking the vaccine is that you are in the group that is most likely to develop pericarditis or heart inflammation after vaccination [are you re-assured yet that it’s more ‘pragmatic’ to simply roll up your sleeve?]. That said, it’s rare to get this, and far more people get it after viral infection than after vaccination. The argument in favour of taking the vaccine is that you’ll be protected against serious illness, but you’re probably already protected after basic vaccination and infection (which most of us have had at least a couple of times now) [as I said, speak for yourself; I’ve ‘tested positive’ for whatever once, and that’s it: natural immunity for the win].

As to the last Q&A, well, you’ll see yourself (that is, provided at least one of your eyes still works in this land of the blind and stupid):

Nina T.: I took three vaccines and have since been infected three times. I also now have long covid. Doesn't the vaccine have an effect on me then? And: should I (not) take another dose now?

Gunnveig Grødeland *expert: The vaccines do not have any particular effect on whether you get infected or not [this is actually true: they don’t prevent infection or transmission]. This is because there is a difference between the variant of the virus on which the vaccine is based and the variants that circulate in society [this is not so true, esp. as it implies many things, such as how can the legacy jab still protect vs. whatever circulates now?]. The most important argument in favour of taking the vaccines is that they provide very good protection against serious illness [apparently, prof. Grødeland didn’t understand what Nina T. wrote: 3 jabs, 3 bouts of Covid plus Long Covid: those three jabs did a fat lot of good, eh], which they do even if there are different variants. If you’re over 65, I would definitely recommend taking another dose [side-effects may incl. your particular contribution to the sustainability of everybody else’s pension plans]. You write that you have long COVID, and we know that the likelihood of getting it is reduced if you have taken the basic vaccination [but Nina T. also took a ‘booster’], and we also know that the viruses that are now circulating are less likely to cause long COVID than previous variants (e.g. Delta) [and Nina T. still has Long Covid: any thoughts on that, prof. jabnik?]. However, we do not know whether additional doses beyond the basic vaccination will have any impact on Long COVID [obviously they don’t, because otherwise Nina T. wouldn’t possibly have Long Covid, eh?].

Bottom Lines

As painful as this is, especially for those affected, ‘the experts™’ all have several conflicts of interest.

Imagine, if you will, the following (fictional, of course) scenario: a politician determines a public investment into, say, motorways or a wind park. Said politician’s husband or partner surprisingly invests in one particular contractor before the political decision is announced and reaps a windfall of ‘profits’. (Also, if there are any Norwegans here reading this ‘scenario’, I’m of course not thinking about former PM Erna Solberg and her husband…for those not from Norway, here goes: Ms. Solberg was ‘grilled’ by a parliamentary enquiry in spring because her husband—with whom she claimed to have ‘never spoken about this’—made a killing on the stock market, with the allegation, of course, being ‘insider trading’.)

We wouldn’t accept this with politicians, contractors, investors, or, to bring up a pertinent university-related example, professors telling one or the other student about the exam questions ahead of the exam.

Why do we ask ‘experts™’ with vested interests—such as vaccine developers—about the benefits of, well, vaccines?

Why do we ask members of the national infection protection panel about their opinions with respect to public health measures, such as booster jabs?

I mean, we wouldn’t ask, say, the defence minister about weapon systems provided by armament manufacturers who also employ the defence minister’s daughter (to use but one, of course, hypothetical comparison)?

Finally, if Mr. Wilthil would be anyone who’s actually doing his homework, he’d know, for instance, that the German Robert Koch Institute has stated, in writing, that Influenza is actually more dangerous than Covid ‘because it kills more people’.

So, to wrap this up, why am I still reading these pieces and offering them to you? Mainly to document the shenanigans (‘keeping the receipts’), but also because, as sad and heart-breaking as these questions are (and as ill-advised and intellectually dishonest the answers are), they also show how thoroughly ‘the experts™’ have succeeded in brainwashing the population.

Interestingly, if vaxx uptake by ‘the elderly’ is any indication, those 65 and older have a more clear-eyed view of this débacle than their younger compatriots: uptake dropped from 3+ million jabs taken in 2021 to a bit more than 1m in 2023. I suppose this comes from seniors, esp. those in ‘care homes’, watching their fellow residents get ill and die shortly after taking yet another jab.

This makes the questions by young people, jabbed as well as unvaccinated, even more…perturbing and indicative of significant cognitive dissonance and, moreover, serves as a testament to the acquired inability of esp. ‘the young’ to differentiate between ice cream and bullshit.

So, if you favour the latter over the former: go ahead, but don’t complain.

Sadly, since ‘the young’ are ‘our future’, this won’t end well.

Sigh.