'What Did We Learn?', Norway's Medicines Agency Asks re/C-19 Juices

63,100 submitted AE reports later, no more dedicated pharmacovigilance will be done--the poison/death juices have become normalised

Some four weeks ago, Norway’s Directorate for Medicinal Products (Direktoratet for medisinske produkter) came out with a little-noticed press release. Pompously entitled, ‘Pharmacovigilance of pandemic vaccines—what have we learnt?’, the press release contained a few boilerplate-speak things and falls, to my mind, into the category of limited hangout.

Needless to say, most legacy media outlets briefly, if very much low-key, performed some reporting™, with none that made it above the first-page fold (or its internet equivalent) in the country’s main news sources—such as state broadcaster NRK’s website or the major urban newspapers, such as Oslo’s Aftenposten (and the rest of Schibsted group’s outlets).

Yes, there was some reporting here and there (I’m offering choice quotes of select pieces below), but the main event was—a nothingburger, if there ever was one. Since that press release isn’t available in English to boot, you, my dear readers, are getting a Fackel Exclusive here and access to this content.

As always, the content of non-English pieces comes to you in my translation, with emphases and [snark] added.

---

Pharmacovigilance of Pandemic Vaccines—What Have we Learnt

Via the Direktoratet of medisinske produkter [DMP], 18 March 2025 [source]

It is now five years since Norway shut down as a result of the pandemic [another one of these opening lies: the country was shut down by politicos upon expert advice™ of public health officialdom]. The first corona vaccine was administered in December 2020, and the first side effect report was published in January 2021 [there were 13 deaths reported by mid-Jan. 2021, and public health officialdom assembled a task force to white-wash the carnage]. We summarise the side effect monitoring here.

When new vaccines and medicines are put into use, we know a lot about the side effect profile through studies conducted prior to authorisation [this is as much of an admission that a) this cult’s faith in big pharma is unbroken and b) that no mistakes were made—public health officialdom may not have understood what they were doing (I doubt that) or merely deemed the risks of the poison/death juices acceptable; I also don’t think that any Norwegian—or other national—health regulator read the documentation; it was all out-sourced to the FDA and EMA, hence none of these folks is ‘responsible’]. These are listed in the package leaflet [none of them are linked, so here’s the link to the Norwegian leaflets]. However, knowledge of rare and unusual side effects is limited. Some side effects are therefore only discovered after the vaccine has been used and many people have been vaccinated. For this reason, the vaccines will be monitored as long as they are in use.

Latest Report

After almost 14 million doses have been administered, DMP has received and processed 63,100 reports of suspected side effects. Of these, 8,531 (14%) are classified as serious and 54,569 (86%) as minor [I’ll have more to say about these data below].

This is the last adverse reaction report to be published on corona vaccines [dated 5 March 2025; direct link] Going forward, adverse reaction reports will be included in the annual report for all medicines [nothing to see here, folks].

Useful Knowledge

Access to good health registers in the Norwegian Institute of Public Health’s temporary emergency preparedness register gave us new opportunities to investigate adverse reaction signals and monitor changes in the incidence of various diseases in the population. In addition, Norway has large population surveys that can identify symptoms and conditions that are not registered in these health registries. Such analyses are important for us to be able to confirm or deny a possible connection with vaccination [so, what did you guys learn?].

It is primarily the elderly and risk groups that have recently been vaccinated [that’s a blatant lie, and it’s easily dispelled—as per the Institute of Public Health’s Covid Update for week 52/2021—entirely:

In total, as of 2 January 2022, 78% of the entire population, 91% of everyone aged 16 and older, and 91% of all people aged 18 and older have been vaccinated with at least one dose. Corresponding figures for the second dose are 71% (all), 86% (16 years and older) and 87% (18 years and older), and for the third dose 29% (all), 34% (16+) and 35% (18+).

You see, it took me some 2-3 minutes to locate the old reports (they were moved), but the main point is that public health officialdom now conflates the Covid poison/death juices with the Flu shots—which means that the data they’re pushing is merely ‘seasonal’ (see the injection database SYSVAK), and by omitting the above-cited information, those few who bother to read these press releases—and those fewer still who bother to read these reports—know; this is what the normalisation of the carnage by public health officialdom looks like]

We are receiving fewer and fewer reports, but side effect monitoring will continue as long as the vaccines are in use [as if they’re all the same: I don’t know about you, but the data screams ‘splice’s—as these data would need to be broken down by doses received, pre-existing conditions, and different poison/death juice, that is, that’s the bare minimum—and would you care to guess™ what isn’t done in the report? All of the above, and ‘the vaccine’ is treated as if it was the same, consistent product over time]. It is still the common and well-known side effects that are reported the most, such as fever, fatigue, and joint and muscle pain. Adverse reaction monitoring has given us new and useful knowledge that has changed the use and advice on vaccination [short of taking big pharma to court, i.e., you’re useless].

Thus senior consultant Sara Viksmoen Watle at DMP.

It’s Worth Reporting AEs

The reporting scheme is an important tool in the surveillance of vaccines. The reports from healthcare professionals and the public give us signals as to whether there are incidents we should investigate further [this is, of course, BS—yes, it’s mandatory for healthcare providers to report, but as this posting from early 2022 quite clearly shows, HC professionals didn’t really submit that many AE reports, with the public doing most of the reporting]

Norwegian doctors played a key role in discovering new, rare side effects of the corona vaccines. When healthcare professionals sent the first reports suspecting that Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) could cause the then unknown and very serious symptom TTS (thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome)/VITT (vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia), few other countries had registered similar cases. In Norway, Vaxzevria was quickly paused and later removed from the corona vaccination programme [huhum, deaths associated with these poison/death juices are in the single digits—deaths associated with the modRNA poison/death juices exceed 250: would you care to guess which products are still administered? Jus’ sayin’…]. The summary of product characteristics for Vaxzevria was also quickly updated with information about VITT. See Coronavirus vaccines and blood clots - what do we know so far?

For the other Corona vaccines, we also discovered serious and rare side effects, such as pericarditis (inflammation of the pericardium) and myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle), only after many people had been vaccinated [remember: the 2009/10 Pandemrix poison juice was taken off the market after one (!) Norwegian kid was diagnosed with narcolepsy; legacy media reports about young people suffering from heart inflammation are legion, e.g., see 20 year-old Theodor’s plight, as reported by legacy media] Signals from side effect monitoring followed by registry studies led the authorities to change the advice on vaccine choice for young people under the age of 30. See Coronavirus vaccines and inflammation of the heart [dated 8 July 2021].

The European Medicines Agency has concluded that there is a link between corona vaccination and menstrual disorders, partly on the basis of adverse reaction reports and population surveys from Norway. See Coronavirus vaccines and menstrual disorders [is this a problem re fertility? Better not investigate, sayeth public health officialdom—and that’s not an unfair characterisation, here you have it from the horse’s mouth:

The mechanism behind menstrual disorders [in the context of Covid-19 vaccination] is still uncertain. It is known that stress, surgery, illness, and weight loss can disrupt the menstrual cycle. It is therefore not inconceivable that an immune response after vaccination can lead to disruption of the menstrual cycle.

That’s about it in terms of what public health officialdom notes; I don’t doubt that some papers will be published in a few years. No-one seems to care and/or consider this problematic, even though these experts™ of course publish their gospel in, e.g., Vaccine:

Menstrual irregularities were relatively common in this sample of 12–15-year-old girls, independent of vaccination and infection status…Vaccination was also associated with increased risk of shorter interval, longer interval, and stronger period pains…

Menstrual disturbances are more common after COVID-19 vaccines than after non-COVID-19 vaccines in VAERS reports [19].

See, it’s all normal.]

Long-Term Discomfort

Most side effects occur in the first few days, and within the first two weeks, after vaccination [i.e., when you were classified as ‘unvaccinated’, another of these original sins public health officialdom cooked up to muddy the waters]. It is very unusual for side effects to occur after more than six weeks. Most are transient, but in rare cases there can be long-term side effects that last more than three months.

We have been asked whether the corona vaccine may have caused similar symptoms and long-term ailments as after COVID-19. Prolonged symptoms mean symptoms that have lasted for more than three months. Watle answers:

So far, no causal link has been established between corona vaccines and long-term ailments, such as fatigue or headaches. Follow-up studies are underway to find out more about possible links with vaccination

Based on current knowledge, it appears that those who have been vaccinated against coronavirus have a lower risk of long-term ailments following COVID-19.’ (External link)

See also fhi.no: ‘Using population surveys to monitor and understand COVID-19 in Norway’.

Facts about Pharmacovigilance and the Report

• Adverse reactions are reported based on suspicion. The fact that a healthcare professional or patient has reported a suspected adverse reaction does not necessarily mean that there is a causal relationship with the vaccine. The purpose of the reporting system is to identify what we should investigate further [like, the 288 deaths?]

• All reports are counted, regardless of whether the reported event is assumed to be related to vaccination or not. Therefore, the figures cannot be used to assess causal relationships or calculate how often an adverse reaction occurs [isn’t that an important thing? I mean, that plus a dose-dependent analysis would certainly help]

• From January 2021, DMP (formerly the Norwegian Medicines Agency) published weekly reports with information on treated suspected side effects of corona vaccines. From November 2021, the reports are published less frequently. This is a final report.

• The adverse reaction reports come from patients, healthcare professionals and manufacturers [partially true: the overwhelming majority came from those affected]

• The ADR Register is a national health register that can be linked to data from other registers. The IPH assists the DMP in investigating signals using health registry data and population surveys.

---

Briefly on that Report

Well, that was underwhelming, eh? Here’s the link to the final report, and here’s what’s in the report (I’ve taken a very brief look):

Generally, we do get many tables and numbers, yet the most relevant aspect (to me, that is) would be to look at the different poison/death juices—it is consistently avoided. Public health officialdom treats ‘the vaccine’ as if it was one and the same formulation (which it wasn’t), and thus conflates the AE reporting.

Here are some of the main numbers:

• Total no. of injections since 27 Dec. 2025: ‘over 13,896,000’

• Table 1 (p. 6/24) lists the AE distribution broken down into age brackets, which is summarised in the below graph

  

  Isn’t it somewhat odd™ that, according to the above-cited press release, ‘It is primarily the elderly and risk groups that have recently been vaccinated’—yet the overwhelming majority of AE reports were filed by people aged 18-49?

• 8,531 or 14% of the total of 61,300 AE reports are classified as ‘serious’

• There’s also Table 2 (p. 7/24), and it kinda gives away the main methodological problem:

  

  Data for the different corona vaccines is not directly comparable. The vaccines are given to people with different disease profiles and ages.

  Yet, while public health officialdom has all the granular data about individuals, their disease profile, and age, as well as information about the various versions of the poison/death juices, the report merely adds all AEs. I mean, a fourth-grader can likely understand that this is BS…

• Penultimately, there are 288 deaths among the AE reports (pp. 8-9/24), which are downplayed in the following way:

  We have received 288 reports of deaths where the reporter suspects that the death is related to vaccination. Most of the deaths have been among the elderly and nursing home residents…

  IPH has conducted a registry study to investigate whether there were differences in total mortality among those who had taken the corona vaccines compared to those who had not taken the vaccine. The study shows that people who took the corona vaccine had lower mortality than those who did not take the vaccine in the period 2021 to 2023 in Norway [here, public health officialdom praises that ‘85% of the resident population aged 18 and older took at least one dose’—and contrast this with the obfuscation noted above]

  The elderly and those in need of care

  Every week, more than 300 residents die in Norwegian nursing homes and similar institutions [unsure if this is a winning argument, but it certainly serves to downplay the 288 deaths in the AE report]

  Many of the elderly nursing home residents who were vaccinated at the start of the pandemic were very frail. It was therefore not unexpected that deaths would occur in temporal relation to vaccination, without there necessarily being a causal relationship with the vaccine. In several of the reports, the notifiers stated that they did not suspect any connection, but that they were reporting for safety’s sake [nope, because it’s mandated by law].

  An expert group of geriatricians carefully reviewed the first 100 deaths reported after vaccination with Comirnaty. There is uncertainty associated with the assessments, but in 10 cases a causal link between vaccine and death was considered ‘probable’ [see this posting]. In these cases, it was recognised that common vaccine side effects may have contributed to a more serious course of disease in nursing home residents with severe frailty. The IPH recommends that for very frail patients (e.g. corresponding to Clinical Frailty Scale 8 or higher) and terminally ill patients, the benefits of vaccination should be carefully weighed against the disadvantages.

• Finally, what about the 29 deaths of people under the age of 60 (p. 9/24)?

  We have processed 29 reports of deaths following vaccination in people under the age of 60. Bive of these concern deaths due to the very rare but serious side effect thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) following vaccination with Vaxzevria (see section Blood clots). For the remaining deaths, the causal relationship with vaccination is uncertain.

That’s literally it.

The carnage in nursing homes is downplayed while deaths under the age of 60 are ‘resolved’ as in ‘we stopped the AZ poison/death juice early’, with the remainder being classified as ‘dunno’.

Back in 2009/10, one (!) case of suspected narcolepsy was enough to pull the emergency break.

Now, depending on what you’d like to count, here’s the tally:

Compared with Pandemrix—which was ‘a catastrophe’ according to the IPH’s Preben Aavitsland—roughly the same amount of injections with the Covid-19 products caused (by spring 2022)…

• 9,175 AE reports, or 633% of the 1,449 AEs associated with Pandemrix

• 8,060 light AE reports, or almost a magnitude more (932%) than the 865 light AEs associated with Pandemrix

• 950 severe AEs (excl. deaths), or 63% more than the number of AEs associated with Pandemrix

• 165 deaths (none that I learned about with Pandemrix), of which almost all were due to the BioNTech/Pfizer product that is ‘offered’ to children over 5 years and pregnant women

What’s in a Word (‘rare’)?

Even if compared to the close to 14m injections given, the data is off the charts.

I’ve resolved not to cite any of the legacy media reporting™ (e.g., here and here) as they mainly reproduce the above-cited press release.

Instead, I’m offering you a few lines from the after-action report press-release by the Norwegian Medicines Agency’s Steinar Madsen that first went live on 12 Nov. 2020 (updated on 28 April 2021):

Vaccine AEs—What Have we Learnt from the 2009 Pandemic?

In Norway, the Pandemrix vaccine was used during immunisation in 2009 and 2010. In retrospect, the vaccine was linked to the disease narcolepsy. A lot is different today, many different vaccines are being tested in large trials and side effect monitoring is better...

Based on the knowledge available at the time of authorisation, the benefits and risks of vaccines are always assessed against the risk of serious illness and death. The pandemic vaccine Pandemrix was based on a well-tested vaccine, a so-called model vaccine, which contained a different influenza virus. This virus was replaced with the swine flu virus when this pandemic was a fact.

‘Serious side effects of vaccines are rare. Based on the knowledge and long experience we had with influenza vaccines, it was considered safe to replace the pandemic virus in the model vaccine’, says Steinar Madsen, Medical Director at the Norwegian Medicines Agency…

How does the current situation differ from the 2009 pandemic?

Today, we're facing a completely new virus that poses a significantly greater risk of serious illness and death than swine flu did. There is currently no authorised vaccine against COVID-19. New studies must therefore be carried out with all vaccine candidates against COVID-19 to document efficacy, safety and quality.

Completely new vaccine technology is being utilised for some of the vaccines, such as DNA and mRNA vaccines. During the course of the pandemic, it is likely that several different vaccines will be authorised and put into use.

‘Large studies with many thousands of participants are now being conducted for many vaccine candidates against COVID-19. This gives us good knowledge about the different vaccines’, says Steinar Madsen.

Active monitoring of side effects after the vaccine has been taken into use is important. ‘Reporting from both healthcare professionals and patients is key to detecting new, unexpected and serious side effects. Today, we have the opportunity to compile and analyse information from various health registries. This means that new, unexpected or serious side effects can be detected more quickly.’

Narcolepsy is a rare disease

During the vaccination period in 2009 and 2010, no side effects were detected that were serious enough to change the use of Pandemrix. It was not until the summer of 2010 that the first suspicions of an increased number of cases of narcolepsy emerged in Sweden and Finland. Narcolepsy is a chronic neurological sleep disorder. The first suspected case in Norway was reported in August 2010…

Rare side effects are difficult to detect. That’s why it's important to have good monitoring and good studies that include many participants. But even with thorough studies, it will never be possible to fully protect against rare side effects. All medicines, including vaccines, can have side effects.

So, what does ‘rare’ mean in statistical terms, then? (source)

The answer is: It depends. The probability threshold needs to be pre-specified before we can call an event to be rare. The typical threshold used in most Statistics courses is 0.05. So, an event will be rare if its probability of occurrence is less than 0.05.

Since the disclosed data on AEs related to the C-19 poison/death juices is useless—they are not broken down according to doses taken over time and all concoctions are treated as if they were the same (they were not)—it is, in fact, impossible to figure out how ‘rare’ or ‘extraordinary’ these AEs actually are.

For whatever reason™, public health officialdom elects to fly blind.

It’s 2025, people.

Bottom Lines

This shitshow will continue for as long as we, the people, permit these assholes to get away with that kind of data monkeying.

There’s no way public health officialdom doesn’t know what is happening: they have all the data needed.

Hence the 64,000 dollar question is—why aren’t they honest?

I suppose they fear retribution. How pathetic.

Moreover, the true meaning of the Pandemic™ is clear now: whereas one suspected case of narcolepsy (more were eventually proven in the end) was enough of a safety signal in 2010, 288 dead and over 60,000 AE reports are treated as if they were the same.

The consequences of this shitshow are equally obvious: we’ll get ever more dangerous pharmaceutical products in the next years, with much more death and carnage coming from this mismanagement.

The message to big pharma is clear: as long as there are less than the above-related official-if-massaged numbers of AEs, you’re fine.

Your consequence should be: never trust pharma, never trust public health officialdom, never trust politicos™.

And: never-ever seek their advice, treatment, or anything.

Be(come) healthy, live free.