Vaxx Injury Compensation Cases Should Get their Day in Court, Legal Scholars Say
That is, in Norway, for very specific reasons and only under very specific circumstances, which renders these 'news™' from up north little then the next (very) limited hangout
Short on time, therefore no introduction—but the suggestion that this, too, is part of (a rather very) limited hangout: admit to that which can no longer be denied, throw the softball to the courts, which will take their good time to look into these matters, and let’s play wait and see.
Also: change my mind once you’ve read the below piece, if you will.
As always, translation, emphases, [and snark] mine.
Two out of Three do not Receive Compensation after the Covid Vaccine: ‘I think these cases should be tried in court’
A professor believes that compensation cases following the coronavirus vaccine should be tried in court. The head of the tribunal that has rejected 130 such complaints agrees.
By Bjørn Atle Gildestad, NRK, 1 Nov. 2024 [source]
Since the coronavirus hit Norway in 2020, 13 million doses of vaccine have been administered [no worries, public health authorities know everything about that, but they aren’t looking into these things publicly].
The Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation (Norsk pasientskadeerstatning, NPE) has processed 1,513 claims for compensation for illness following the coronavirus vaccine. 419 have been granted [read: admitted]. 133 of those who were rejected took their case to the National Complaints Body for the Health Service (Helseklage), but only two were upheld.
Pasientskadenemnda [a kind of committee assessing patient injuries] is one of several boards in Helseklage, and the head of the board, former district court judge Kjetil Gjøen, tells NRK that in the complaints that have been rejected, a causal link between the vaccine and the ailments suffered by patients has not been proven in practice:
We rely on the experts appointed in the cases and the doctors on the board. [‘Experts™’, such as Prof. Gunnveig Grødeland, who’s also a vaccine developer, that is; in any other matter, that would be a glaring conflict of interest, esp. if said ‘expert™’ also wrote the expertise the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation relies on]
Magne Strandberg, professor of jurisprudence at the University of Bergen, is now advocating that disputes over compensation following the coronavirus vaccine be tried in court.
‘Yes, it’s high time. The assessments to be made here are not entirely straightforward’, Strandberg told NRK.
Legal Uncertainties
He emphasises that there must be a scientific basis for assuming that a vaccine may have caused a specific injury:
‘There is a certain amount of legal uncertainty here that should preferably be resolved in court. And ideally it should go all the way to the top of the legal system to get a clarification of this question’, says Strandberg, meaning that the cases should go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Kjetil Gjøen agrees with Strandberg that a court ruling would be good:
Yes, we are interested in hearing what the courts think about these issues. We are unlikely to get a final judgement, regardless of which way it goes, because new research reports are constantly being published. What’s more interesting is that the courts can specify how we should use the medical assessments in these cases.
[NRK] Is that a challenge for the tribunal today?
‘It is a challenge, yes. We think these are difficult cases’, says Gjøen.
Uncertainty Among Experts [sic]
There is uncertainty among immunologists as to whether the corona vaccine can be the cause of the ailments some people have suffered [doh].
Professor of immunology at the University of Bergen, Elling Ulvestad, submitted a report to the Norwegian Nurses Association earlier this autumn and told NRK:
The three corona vaccines that have been used in Norway can cause illness in the form of fatigue, muscle pain, and cognitive problems.
The report was later criticised, partly because it referred to research that had not been peer-reviewed [that was perfectly fine for pro-jab advocates, though]. Ulvestad rejected the criticism, but the Patient Complaints Board would not rely on his report anyway.
‘That's because we have other assessments that say something different, first and foremost an assessment from Professor of Immunology Gunnveig Grødeland from the University of Oslo, who has come to different conclusions on these points’, says Kjetil Gjøen to NRK.
I’ll interrupt the flow here because I feel the urge to re-link to what Grødeland has written, which I’ve dealt with at length in this piece:
I’ll merely quote the following paragraph from her assessment to induce you to read up on the ‘science™’ the authorities rely on when adjudicating vaccine injury claims:
[prof. Grødeland] Side effects will typically occur during the first few days after vaccination [you mean, keeling over an dying? Or being (force) vaccinated in a care home and dying shortly thereafter?]. This is because they will mainly occur as a consequence of the inflammation that forms when the innate immune system recognises something foreign [oopsie, shouldn’t have said that because you’ve described this as the mechanism of action of the modRNA and DNA-vectored jabs]. For this reason, they [spike proteins] will also typically disappear within a short period of time. A limit of 6 weeks for assessing a direct correlation with vaccination is reasonable
And now back to today’s piece.
Grødeland said this to NRK in September:
Today, we can neither rule out nor say for sure that there is no connection. It’s open today, as I see the research. [absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence, I’d add, plus perhaps the notion that Grødeland put a time limit of six weeks after injection on adverse reactions…]
We’re Open to Causality, But…
[NRK] If Grødeland is not so adamant, so why is the Patient Injury Compensation Board so adamant in its rejections?
‘We’re not absolutely certain that there is no causal link. We are open to the possibility that there is. But the legal threshold, as we see it, is that a certain amount of research evidence is required to establish that the conditions for compensation are in place. And according to our [sic] experts, we cannot see that this evidentiary threshold has been met’, says Gjøen.
NPE therefore believes that it is theoretically possible that the vaccine can cause disease, but that theory is not sufficient [but there’s at least 413 individuals who suffered a vaccine injury, as per the NPE…].
Professor Grødeland has written a statement for NPE. This statement says something about the development of corona vaccines, how they work, and about possible side effects [again, if you’ve not read it, click here].
Likely to Vote in Favour of the State
NRK is aware that several people who have been rejected by the Patient Injury Compensation Boardwill sue the state for incorrect interpretation of the regulations. They will refer to the Supreme Court’s judgement from 2015 in which a 12-year-old boy was diagnosed with MS after taking the second dose of the MMR vaccine [I’ll probably look into these details before too long].
They believe the judgement is a guideline for vaccine cases. The state lost the case, and the conclusion was that since it had not been proven that another cause of the MS diagnosis was more likely than the MMR vaccine, the state was liable for the damage [I’ll certainly look into that one later this week].
Bottom Lines
It’s a common pun to state that science advances one funeral at the time.
Sadly, with the modRNA poison/death juice, there’s so many of these funerals, it borders on the tragically absurd that ‘experts™’ like Prof. Grødeland or bureaucrats like Kjetil Gjøen insist that these documented cases of vaccine [sic] injuries are—‘theories’ that somehow aren’t ‘good enough’.
If I didn’t wish to keep my breakfast, I’d go and puke now.
To literally add insult to injury, here’s what prompted that above NRK ‘reporting’:
On 29 Oct. 2024, Kristin Cordt-Hansen, currently serving as director of the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation, released the following press statement:
The Norwegian Nurses’ Association (Norsk Sykepleierforbund, NSF) has been critical of how NPE handles coronavirus vaccine cases. NSF asked Professor Elling Ulvestad of the University of Bergen to write a statement about corona vaccines and the damage they can cause, such as conditions like fatigue, brain fog, muscle pain, and cognitive problems.
‘There is clear evidence that, in rare cases [this is the give-away that prof. Ulvestad is in on these shenanigans], there is a link between vaccination and the aforementioned conditions’, Elling Ulvestad told VG.
NPE received Ulvestad’s report at the end of August [here’s my take].
Has Ulvestad’s report changed NPE’s view of the vaccine cases?
[Kristin Cordt-Hansen] We have looked at Ulvestad’s report with great interest. Our assessment is that his report does not change our conclusions [and there you go; transcribed from this, we learn that NPE doesn’t give a shit about dissenting opinions, which is not how science works—but it’s exactly how ‘the Science™’ does things].
The NPE Director explains that the reason for this is that the NPE has asked Grødeland to look at Ulvestad’s statement and the research he refers to [this, in short, is called ‘circular reasoning: Grødeland’s declaration is contradicted by Ulvestad, and in response Grødeland is cited as follows].
[Kristin Cordt-Hansen] In short, Grødeland is of the opinion that we do not have sufficient research today to support Ulvestad’s observations [what Grødeland means is that, at the current ‘speed of science™’, there aren’t enough papers that contradict Ulvestad’s observations]. We have also sought advice from specialists in other medical fields, and they share Grødeland’s view [it’s a big club, and neither you nor I—nor Ulvestad—are in it].
Will NPE reprocess any cases based on Ulvestad’s statement?
‘No, we will not be reprocessing any of our corona vaccine cases on the basis of Ulvestad’s statement,’ says Cordt-Hansen.
What a shit-show, eh?
What NPE chief Cordt-Hansen implies is that, as long as her ‘trusted experts™’ don’t accede to confirm that the modRNA poison/death juice are injuring and killing people, no amount of new evidence will make NPE reconsider any earlier conclusions.
Do you see how this works now?
A new product is rolled out, the population is told all is well, and in case something goes wrong, there are protocols in place. Take the modRNA poison/death juice.
After some time, people file adverse reaction compensation claims, and despite new evidence coming out, and professionals disagreeing with each other about causes and effects (which would be scientific discourse), none of this troubles Kristin Cordt-Hansen.
At this point, we may marvel what would have to happen for this seemingly nice elderly lady would change her mind (picture from here).
I don’t know if Kristin Cordt-Hansen wears Prada, but she is one evil person.
If the crime is big enough, it ceases to be a crime, and becomes either policy or accident.
Only small people commit crimes, and only small-people crimes against the machine itself counts as real crimes.
I'm not cynical: the above is the sum total of my experience with the contrast between how we are taught (and teach) the machine works and ought to work, and how it actually functions in measurable effects.
The difference between a cynic (philosophically speaking) and anyone else is:
A will to believe rather than know.
I am doing an article on this issue - testimony of a vaccine-injured man who cannot get legal relief because doctors do not recognise his injury. It's absolutely brutal.