The Science™ on Excess Mortality: ‘An ongoing public health crisis of historic proportions’
A new instalment of a limited hangout (at best) or massive lies (my take) concerning Norwegian excess deaths since 2020, which now exceed the death toll of WW2 (part 1)
This is a longer piece, with my take on the underlying paper following in a separate posting; for both, I would ask you to keep the following quip in mind:
Scientists don’t believe, they have evidence.
Thus Kary Mullis, as cited by Celia Farber in her amazing Serious Adverse Events (Chelsea Green, 2023, p. 129),
Translation, emphases, and [snark] mine—and let’s add my utter contempt for da Science™ and its cited protagonists here.
Researchers: ‘An ongoing public health crisis of historic proportions’
Something is seriously wrong with Norwegian public health, say researchers. A new study concludes that many more people have died than expected in recent years, including among young people. The Norwegian Institute of Public Health refutes the claims [this paragraph is the translation of the Norwegian one in the screen shot below; FHI = Folkehelseinstituttet, or Institute of Public Health (hence IPH)]
[caption] Researchers are of the opinion that there was significant excess mortality in Norway in the last years.
By Jan-Erik Wilthil, NRK, 12 Sept. 2025 [source; archived]
‘This is an ongoing public health crisis of historic proportions. Since 2022, hundreds of children and young adults have died in excess of what was expected’, says statistician and researcher Richard Aubrey White.
Together with other researchers in the Corona Study at Oslo University Hospital, he has examined mortality in Norway in recent years.
Researchers Richard Aubrey White, Arne Søraas, and Gunhild Alvik Nyborg are among those who are behind the study that points to sustained high mortality in Norway [let’s note: Mr. White is a statistician who does analysis for the IPH; Mr. Søraas is a known Covid vaxx hawk, leads Norway’s well-endowed (money-wise) Koronastudien, and was last seen in late July touting the achievements of the poison/death juices; they were joined by first-sidelined and now apparently rehabilitated Ms. Nyborg, e.g., in this op-ed in autumn 2024 when they pushed, however predictably, that vaccines are awesome vs. Covid and splained™ the excess deaths by pointing to…(drum roll) ‘Long C-19’:
‘In the period 2022–2024, we observed 11,588 more deaths than expected, when compared with the trend from before the pandemic. This is more than the number of Norwegians who died during World War II’, says White [I don’t understand the permanent WW2 comparisons, but let’s run with it: according to that intel-op masquerading as repository of conventional wisdom—yes, I’m referring to Wikipedia—that conflict saw ‘a total of 10,262 Norwegians los(ing) their lives in the conflict or while imprisoned’: the four years 2022-24 saw a whooping 13% higher excess mortality than five years of German occupation—and with these numbers in mind, let’s move on].
According to the researchers, 2024 was the third consecutive year of significant excess mortality:
Ages 1-19: 45 more deaths (37% higher than expected)
Ages 20-39: 107 more deaths (18% higher than expected)
Ages 40-64: 439 more deaths (11% higher than expected)
Total for all age groups: 2,898 more deaths (7% higher than expected)
Number of annual deaths in Norway
Expected mortality based on trends before the pandemic 2010-19:
The visualisation shows how mortality suddenly [orig. plutselig] rose in 2022. 2011 is excluded due to the terror attack on 22 July [by Anders Breivik; do note that da Science™ talks about the changes highlighted with a black arrow and the ‘b’, as opposed to the rising mortality numbers 2020/21 indicated also with a black arrow and ‘a’; both are my additions].
The peer-reviewed study was recently published in the Scandinavian Journal of Public Health [that study requires payment and/or institutional log-in, and I’m happy to report that I have access].
‘We have not seen excess mortality at this level in recent times. We believe it is very important that these figures come to light’, says White, who is the lead author of the study [I agree with the latter sentiment].
The statistician [that would be Mr. White] has worked with mortality analyses for a number of years at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (IPH), but emphasises that he is speaking as a researcher and not on behalf of theIPH [talk about ‘disclaimers’ here for a moment].
IPH: ‘No increased mortality’ [orig. Ikke økt dødelighet]
Acting Director of Infection Control Preben Aavitsland at the IPH refutes the claim that there is an ongoing public health crisis in Norway:
This is not correct. The number ofdeaths under the age of 40 has decreased from 2023 to 2024 [isn’t this anecdotal and one would require longer timeframes to know, scientifically speaking?]. Most deaths in this age group are due to external causes such as suicide, overdose and accidents, or conditions that are congenital or occur around birth [so…these ‘external causes’ are no concern of public health officialdom?].
According to the director of infectious diseases, there has also been no increase in mortality from cardiovascular diseases [this statement is particularly offensive as the IPH’s very own data—they are the guardians of the Cause-of-Death Registry, or Dødsårsaksregisteret—claims that a) ‘all deaths in Norway and among Norwegians who died abroad are registered’ while b) Dr. Aavitsland just denied reporting™ by the very same journo™, Jan-Erik Wilthil, about ‘record number of resuscitation attempts after cardiac arrest’, as reported by state broadcaster NRK in October 2024:
Isn’t it extra-odd (and then some) that the very same journo™ who wrote that piece about the baffling increase in cardiac arrests—based on official public health data from the Norwegian Cardiac Arrest Register, or Norsk hjertestansregister, no less—doesn’t press Aavitsland on this one?]
Previously, IPH has used the same reference period as the researchers behind the study, when calculating mortality in Norway.
Recently, however, they chose to include the year 2023, which was a year with more deaths than expected [and this is how public health officialdom is both normalising™ excess mortality worse than during WW2 while, at the same time, by destroying the baseline for comparisons, make a mockery of whatever official™ data they put out—in the long run, the latter will prove to be way worse than a belated, ‘oopsie, we fucked up big time’ non-apology]
[For the record, this isn’t the first time Norwegian public health officialdom has monkeyed with these data, and I’m simply putting this link here for the sake of it:
I’ve kept many of these receipts, and I’ll be re-posting them here and there]
‘We disagree’
‘In this way, the IPH has contributed to normalising higher death rates’, says White, adding:
The IPH chose to include 2023, a year with both high corona infections and high mortality, as a reference. Then excess mortality will in practice become the new normal. It is like saying: ‘There was a flood in 2023, and the water level is the same in 2024, so we don’t need to worry’.
Aavitsland also refutes this:
We disagree. We did this to be able to detect changes in mortality from week to week during waves of influenza, Covid-19, and other diseases throughout the year. Then the last few years must be included. The same change has been made in 26 other European countries we collaborate with. A baseline of 2010–19 is too far back for this purpose [let’s not mince words here—this, in effect, means that comparisons of older data with stuff based on these more recent compilations is now impossible; there’s no more baseline for anything, and neither is there anything to be done about this, for, going forward, all European data is like that, hence it’ll be totally impossible to derive any meaningful analytics from these data™].
No Definitive Answer
Unlike researchers White, Søraas, and Nyborg, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health believes that mortality after the pandemic has continued to fall after the peak year of 2022 [please refer, once more, to the top-cited quote by Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis]. Thus Aavitsland:
This shows that we are not seeing a persistently high mortality rate, but that there has been a temporary pandemic effect that is now declining.
According to the director of infectious diseases, there is no definitive answer to what is the best method for calculating mortality:
It is good that data on mortality is available to various researchers so that we can gain supplementary knowledge for our own analyses carried out at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health [meaning: whatever you do, we at the IPH shall divulge the official™ version of reality™].
Believes Coronavirus is the Cause
The researchers behind the study point to coronavirus as the likely explanation for the increased death toll [well, what can I say…]:
The excess mortality began when the omicron variant spread and the government removed all measures.
[this is so totally false, it boggles the mind—and do note the complicity of the journo™ Wilthil in not pointing out who and what led the gov’t to revoke (most) mandates in February and March 2022:
The gov’t, based on a Risk Assessment by the IPH, revoked the mandates in light of these numbers—and because they realised they couldn’t contain Omicron. I thought I’d bring this up]
White et al. refer to a number of studies that show that even mild to moderate Covid-19 increases the risk of death for up to a year after infection:
The coronavirus is not a common cold virus. It attacks the entire body, including the heart and brain.
Aavitsland at the National Institute of Public Health, however, considers the researchers lack documentation for the claim that Covid-19 still affects mortality [didn’t prevent the peer-reviewers of the paper from signalling their consent to publish it]:
The weakness of the study is that the authors speculate on the coronavirus and the pandemic as the cause of the mortality rates among young people, but they do not show any data on causes of death to support this.
[this is, if we’d be technical for a moment, not incorrect—but that has to do with the fact that the IPH has monkeyed with the definitions and, back in the day, introduced the made-up category of ‘Covid-associated deaths’ is essentially meaningless as it conflates having ‘died of Covid’ with ‘died with Covid’—and from autumn 2023, a positive™ ‘Covid test’ was no longer required to be categorised as such:
‘COVID-19-associated deaths are defined as deaths where COVID-19 is indicated as an underlying or contributing cause on the death certificate. Data on deaths are extracted on 22 November 2023 at 07:30. The figures may be adjusted based on subsequent registrations, especially in the last week. While previously only deaths with a positive test were included test in MSIS, deaths without a positive test are now also included in MSIS.’
But the IPH chief monkey senses weaknesses in the study…read up on this
According to White, sick leave and the number of GP visits increased both during and after corona waves.
The research group is now working on another study that investigates whether the pandemic is still leading to increased pressure on the health system [great news, eh? I for one, won’t be holding my breath].
Preliminary analyses indicate that more people than before are visiting their GP with symptoms associated with late effects of Covid-19 [hardly surprising given that our intrepid research group incl. one Arne Søraas who has been the leader of the Corona Study since 2020 and, well, shall we call it a ‘vested interest’, or ‘ulterior motive’, in so claiming…]:
[White] This is exactly what studies have warned against, and it supports that it is the virus that is the main cause of the increase in deaths.
White believes the study shows that Covid-19 is still a dangerous disease, because it affects so many of the body’s organs:
It can lead to increased morbidity and mortality in the long term, even though people are now less likely to become seriously ill from the coronavirus in the acute phase [but…isn’t your study about excess mortality in the near-term…?]
Bottom Lines
This is all so frustrating—in the most generous manner, we may classify the above piece as a (very) limited hang-out to confer the veneer to normality to these abominations.
I, for one, ain’t buying it as I’ve kept too many receipts of these shenanigans.
Yes, I’ve not finished reading the paper (wait for tomorrow’s posting for my take as it’s paywalled), but here are the key take-aways:
it doesn’t matter if these intrepid researchers™ or the IPH’s chief diehard-vaxxer Aavitsland is concerned, it’s a fake debate™
this isn’t merely because they changed the definitions of ‘Covid-associated deaths’ sometime in 2023 but also due to the fact that you (your corpse, that is) don’t need a positive test to be included in that category
Words and whatever metaphors fail me—we’ve been down all these rabbit-holes before—and there’s no way someone like journo™ Wilthil (who’s reporting™ on these issues for years) doesn’t know this.
I submit that it’s arguably worse for the habitual liar Aavitsland as well as for the intrepid researchers™ White, Søraas, and Nyborg, all of whom are merely the other side in this entire fake debate™.
Why do I call them thus? Well, this posting is quite long already, hence I’ll delimit myself to two more paragraphs:
On the one hand, their study (which we’ll look at tomorrow) mentions the term ‘vaccine’ exactly once in the text and in four footnotes citing other papers. ‘Vaccination status’, the differing number of injections received, or the various products are not included.
And then there’s this enduring nugget of wisdom courtesy of Upton Sinclair:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
I’d merely suggest to add ‘social status’ and ‘access to legacy media exposure’ to the term ‘salary’ and, since Ms. Nyborg is a woman, suggest to change ‘man’ into ‘man or woman’.
What a shitshow.
Thanks for reading Die Fackel 2.0! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
2019 is too far back?