Thursday, June 19, 2025

Polaris of Enlightenment

Covid vaccination in Iceland – a failed experiment

The criticized covid vaccinations

Now that it is clear that the vaccination hysteria was completely misguided, how long will it be before people lose faith in the current authorities?

Published 29 November 2023
– By Thorsteinn Siglaugsson

7 minute read
This is an opinion piece. The author is responsible for the views expressed in the article.

Now when the numbers are in, the Icelandic Chief Medical Officer (CMO) claims vaccination against Covid-19 reduced the probability of death from the disease by half, compared with no vaccination. But the actual figures tell a very different story, and sadly the method used to arrive at this conclusion is questionable to say the least. The actual reduction in deaths is negligible at best, and the most worrying result is how those fully vaccinated (2 doses) were three times more likely to die from the disease than the unvaccinated. When we take into account the number of deaths reported following vaccination, the overall result of the experiment is likely to be negative.

The actual reduction in deaths is negligible at best

Image 1: Screenshot from the Chief Medical Officer’s press release on September 13th. https://island.is/en/o/directorate-of-health/news/stada-covid-19-a-islandi-og-i-evropu

In September, the office of the Chief Medical Officer published a news release on the results from a study of the effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines. They claim that those fully vaccinated and boosted were only half as likely to die from Covid-19, compared with those unvaccinated, using 2022 numbers. As demonstrated below, this claim is false.

I have compared the data on Covid-19 deaths by age and vaccination status, received from the Chief Medical Officer, with the already published and available data on vaccination status by age-group. As the population data by year, age-group and vaccination status obtained from the CMO is unusable, as I explain in more detail later, I use the total number vaccinated over the whole period instead, so my analysis applies to the whole period, rather than 2022 only. But considering how 94% of the deaths occurred in 2022 anyway, it is very unlikely that a more detailed breakdown would affect the results in any meaningful way.

Table 1: Covid-19 deaths and the effect of vaccination, 2021-20231

So, here’s what I’ve done. I calculate the crude mortality rate by dividing the number of deaths by the number of individuals, split by vaccination status and age-group. Note that this is not IFR or CFR, just deaths as a percentage of group population. I then use the mortality rate of the boosted group to calculate the expected number of deaths among the unvaccinated and fully vaccinated (2 doses), had they been vaccinated and boosted. This way I can estimate the number of lives saved or lost due to the boosters among those two groups.

I then do the same to find the resulting number of lives saved or lost, had the fully vaccinated and the boosted not been vaccinated at all, using the mortality rate of the unvaccinated.

Finally, I apply the mortality rate of the fully vaccinated (2 doses) to the boosted and the unvaccinated to calculate the mortality, had those groups been vaccinated with 2 doses.

The results indicate how, in the youngest group, about 10% fewer would have died had the whole group been vaccinated and boosted, compared with the actuals. This result is not statistically valid however, due to the extremely low number of total deaths in this age-group.

94% of the deaths occurred in 2022

For those aged 60-79, full vaccination with boosters would have resulted in 11% fewer deaths and for those 80 and older, 7% fewer, compared with the actuals. Interestingly, for the 60-79 age-group, the boosters would have yielded 4% more deaths than no vaccination at all.

On the whole, for 2021-2023, full vaccination with boosters among the two older groups, where we have statistically significant data, would have resulted in 8.4% fewer deaths only, compared with the actuals, just under 20 lives saved in total, and 12% fewer than if no-one had been vaccinated. A far cry from the 50% reduction in mortality risk claimed by the Chief Medical Officer.

What is particularly interesting here is the high mortality rate among those who received 1-2 doses of the vaccine, (96% of those had 2 doses, so-called “full vaccination”). There were no deaths in this category among the youngest group (the same caution applies as before, due to lack of statistical significance), but for both the older age-groups, had everyone received 2 doses of the vaccine instead of either none, or 3 or more, the death-toll from Covid-19 would have almost tripled.

Chart 1: See Table 1 for references.

Shocking indeed. But when we consider the indications we already have of how the probability of infection increases with time after vaccination, keeps increasing with every dose after a certain period of time, it sadly does not come as a big surprise. What the long-term development will be is uncertain. Will this risk keep increasing with time? Are those who have received the vaccine doomed to enter a constant cycle of boosters against a relatively harmless disease for the foreseeable future, to avoid the elevated mortality risk should they catch the virus? And considering how each dose increases the probability of infection, what is then the downside of the continued vaccine boosters? Those questions should be a top priority in medical research, but of course they aren’t.


The Icelandic Medicines Agency has now received over 6,000 reports of adverse effects following Covid-19 vaccination. 360 of those are classified as serious, according to a recent press release. This amounts to around one in every 800 people vaccinated. Compared with adverse effects reports from influenza vaccination, this is between 500 and 1000-fold the rate one might have expected. We already saw indications  of this a long time ago, and we’ve seen confirmations of this ratio from other countries, again and again. This is yet another one.

Still, we do not have directly established causal links, as it seems the cases are only registered, but for some reason the causality never gets investigated and is therefore never directly established.

The latest detailed report appeared well over a year ago, in April 2022. At that time, the agency had received around 3,600 reports of adverse effects. Out of those, 293 were classified as serious, and there were 36 reported deaths. If we extrapolate directly, it may be assumed that we may now have a total of between 60 and 70 reported deaths, around a quarter of the total reported deaths from Covid-19.

The Icelandic Medicines Agency has now received over 6,000 reports of adverse effects following Covid-19 vaccination.

Based on the numbers and the research quoted, it seems reasonable to expect that the vaccination will eventually result in an increase, rather than a decrease in Covid-19 deaths. And if we take into account the estimated 60-67 deaths following vaccination — approximately triple the currently estimated number of lives saved by dose 3, 4 and 5 — the vaccination has probably already led to an increase in the total number of lives lost, compared with no vaccination. And then we haven’t even begun to consider the hundreds of serious adverse effects reported.


The question remains how the CMO managed to conclude that the mortality among the boosted was 50% lower in 2022 than among the unvaccinated. On what basis do they make this claim?

After extensive email exchanges with the Chief Epidemiologist, an official in the Chief Medical Officer’s office, the explanation is now clear. In the table on which their mortality calculations are based, the unvaccinated and fully vaccinated (1-2 doses) are lumped together as “unvaccinated”, while only those both fully vaccinated and boosted are counted as “vaccinated”, (This is why I couldn’t use those data for reference; they don’t properly distinguish between the groups). As discussed above, mortality among the fully vaccinated but without boosters, is almost three times that of the other two groups. Lumping them together with those actually unvaccinated, then slapping the “unvaccinated” stamp on the whole group, explains the high mortality rate among those classified as unvaccinated in the two older age-groups. Then, having conveniently redefined the meaning of the word “unvaccinated” to include the fully vaccinated also, the CMO sent out their press release on September 13th, claiming a 50% reduction in mortality among the “fully vaccinated” (in fact yet another redefinition).

Table 2: Excerpt from the Chief Medical Officer’s datasheet. The definition of “unvaccinated” is everyone with 0-2 jabs. See Table 1 for reference.

As explained above, judging by the actual – not fabricated – breakdown by vaccination status, it is clear that the Chief Medical Officer’s claim that full vaccination with boosters reduced the probability of death from Covid-19 by half, compared with no vaccination, is totally unwarranted. At best, weighed against the promises made at the time, the positive effect of the vaccination is negligible as things stand now, and most probably negative when we count in deaths following vaccination. And it is particularly worrying how the Chief Medical Officer continues to push for yet more boosters for the 60-79 age-group, where the net benefit of the boosters is in fact negative, compared with no vaccination.

As I was exploring this, it came to my attention that the Icelandic Ministry for Healthcare recently proposed amendments to the patient insurance legislation, lowering the requirements for insurance payout due to vaccination “recommended by the health authorities”, and raising the maximum amount of compensation. This indicates how the authorities are now beginning to brace for the consequences of the biggest and most devastating medical experiment in history, while at the same time only continuing to knowingly aggravate the problem.

They were repeated, again and again by the media, without a shred of criticism, no questions asked, no doubts raised, no evidence ever required

In 2021, health authorities and prominent health professionals kept repeating claims of the miraculous effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines. How they were saving hundreds of lives. How the unvaccinated were filling up hospital beds. Some even called for the unvaccinated to be permanently excluded from society and put in a lifelong quarantine. Looking at the numbers now, it is utterly clear how those claims were simply untrue. But they were repeated, again and again by the media, without a shred of criticism, no questions asked, no doubts raised, no evidence ever required. As we see, looking at the latest press release, the authorities continue to spread those false claims, in fact now going to unprecedented lengths to justify them. And as long as the vast majority of the population chooses to believe them, and as the barriers protecting government misinformation keep rising, will they ever cease?

 

Thorsteinn Siglaugsson 

 


Sources

  1. Andlát Covid-19 og bólusetningarstaða 2020 2023.pdf, received by email on October 6th 2023, accessible at https://www.prim.is/c19-death_by_injections.pdf, https://www.covid.is/statistical-information-on-vaccination, https://www.covid.is/data

Thorsteinn Siglaugsson is a Icelandic economist, consultant and writer. Chairman of the Icelandic Free Speech Society. Author: "From Symptoms to Causes" (Amazon). Regular contributor to The Daily Sceptic, Conservative Woman and Brownstone Institute. Siglaugsson also writes on Substack.

TNT is truly independent!

We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.

Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…

US removes COVID vaccine recommendation for children and pregnant women

The criticized covid vaccinations

Published 28 May 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Kennedy has long been highly critical of the way the Biden administration urged that even young children be injected with the experimental vaccines.
3 minute read

The US government has removed the experimental COVID-19 vaccines from the list of recommended vaccinations for healthy pregnant women and children.

We’re now one step closer to realizing President Trump’s promise to make America healthy again, declared Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. when announcing the decision.

– I couldn’t be more pleased to announce that as of today the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule, RFK said in a video posted on X yesterday.

According to analysts, the decision will most likely mean that significantly fewer children and pregnant women will be vaccinated with the heavily criticized vaccines in the future – partly because this is not recommended by the authorities – but also because many insurance companies will likely no longer cover the cost.

– Last year the Biden administration urged healthy children to get yet another COVID shot despite the lack of any clinical data to support the repeat booster strategy in children, Kennedy continued.

“Common sense and good science”

At the announcement, Kennedy was flanked by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr. Martin Makary and National Health Service Chief Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

– It’s common sense and it’s good science, Bhattacharya said.

– There’s no evidence healthy kids need it today and most countries have stopped recommending it for children, Makary added.

Even the US Department of Health and Human Services press secretary, Vianca N. Rodriguez Feliciano, states that “HHS and the CDC remain committed to gold standard science and to ensuring the health and well-being of all Americans – especially our nation’s children”.

“A victory for all children and pregnant women”

Since the vaccines became available, the government has recommended them to almost all citizens including children and pregnant women.

Mary Holland, CEO of Children’s Health Defense (CHD) which early on urged the CDC not to recommend the vaccine for children and challenged the agency after the decision welcomes the announcement.

– Hallelujah! Holland said, adding: “These dangerous, poorly tested shots have caused injuries and death to far too many children. And many of the vaccines’ long-term side effects remain unknown. This is a major step in the right direction”.

– CHD urged the CDC not to add these dangerous vaccines to the childhood schedule. When we were ignored, we fought relentlessly to get them removed. This is a victory for all children and pregnant women.

In 2022, CHD sued the US federal Food and Drug Administration for granting emergency approval of COVID-19 vaccines for children and infants. The lawsuit alleged that the FDA abused its emergency use authorization power to push dangerous biological substances on minors. The organization appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court, which ultimately declined to hear the case.

“Emergency use authorized” for 5-year-olds

Even during the most panicked phases of the coronavirus crisis, experts agreed that children were at extremely low risk from COVID-19. Shortly after the vaccines were approved, side effects were reported, and peer-reviewed studies linked the vaccine to myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young people, in addition to several other health risks.

Despite this, public health authorities initially approved the vaccine for people aged 16 and older, and extended it to 12-year-olds in May 2021. The FDA then approved the vaccine for children aged 5 and older in October 2021, and for infants aged 6 months in June 2022.

However, the COVID-19 vaccine has never received full approval from the FDA for children under 12 it is still only authorized for use under emergency use authorization.

Nevertheless, the CDC added COVID vaccination to its routine vaccination schedule for children and adults in February 2023, after the agency’s advisory committee unanimously recommended it. The CDC has since continued to recommend annual booster doses for children.

The federal vaccination schedule also forms the basis for the vaccination recommendations given by most doctors, and also serves as formal guidance for state and local public health authorities that determine which vaccinations are required for school attendance. Children must usually have received all vaccines on the schedule to be considered “up to date”.

EU’s withholding of Pfizer vaccine texts ruled illegal by court

The criticized covid vaccinations

Published 15 May 2025
– By Editorial Staff
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla had secret text message conversations in 2021.
2 minute read

The European Commission is found guilty by the European Court of Justice of withholding text messages between Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer’s CEO in connection with the multi-billion euro purchase of COVID-19 vaccines. The Court ruled that the Commission violated transparency legislation when it refused to disclose the messages.

Now the Commission must disclose the conversations or provide a more credible explanation for why it cannot disclose them.

In spring 2021, it emerged that the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, had private text message conversations in connection with the comprehensive COVID-19 vaccine agreement concluded between the EU and the pharmaceutical company. The agreement covered 1.8 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccine, but few details of how it was reached have been made public. For example, the price tag for each dose is still not known.

When a journalist from the New York Times requested the text message conversations between von der Leyen and Bourla, it was announced that these had been deleted. The following year, the European Court of Auditors reviewed the case and questioned why the European Commission did not disclose the text messages or other written details of the agreement. Furthermore, the Commission is said to have chosen not to share any written details of the agreement, something it has been transparent about in the past, which was of course also questioned by the Court.

The European Court of Auditors has no authority to demand more information about the text message conversations, but the New York Times chose in 2023 to file a lawsuit in the matter and this week the case was brought before the European Court of Justice. The court was asked to examine whether the European Commission had breached the law by not disclosing the conversations.

Court: “Must provide credible explanations”

The court’s decision finds that the European Commission did break the law when it refused to disclose the text message conversations between the chairman and the CEO, reports the New York Times. Under EU transparency laws, the conversations should have been shared with the newspaper.

The European Commission claimed that it did not consider the conversations important and therefore deleted them and that they cannot be retrieved. However, it never explained the extent of the search for them, which the Court considers insufficient.

The commission cannot merely state that it does not hold the requested documents but must provide credible explanations enabling the public and the court to understand why those documents cannot be found”, the Court said.

It is unclear whether the text messages have actually been deleted, but the court ruled that the European Commission must now either disclose the conversations, or at least provide a more detailed and credible explanation as to why they cannot be disclosed. In a statement, the European Commission said it would “adopt a new decision providing a more detailed explanation”.

Top EU court rules on von der Leyen’s secret Pfizer messages

The criticized covid vaccinations

Published 13 May 2025
– By Editorial Staff
According to critics, transparency in the EU has decreased significantly under von der Leyen's rule.
3 minute read

EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s handling of secret text messages with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla is now under scrutiny in a court case that threatens to destroy her political legacy and further erode confidence in the EU’s decision-making process.

Tomorrow, the EU General Court will rule on whether the European Commission broke the law by refusing to release text messages exchanged between von der Leyen and Bourla during negotiations on a controversial COVID-19 vaccine deal worth billions.

The ruling is expected to further undermine confidence in von der Leyen’s leadership, which is already heavily criticized for its abuse of power and centralization of decision-making. Among other things, the case concerns whether text messages should be classified as official documents and thus subject to EU transparency rules.

The case was initiated by The New York Times and its former Brussels correspondent, who took the matter to court after the Commission’s decision to refuse to publish the text messages in 2022.

In an interview with the NYT in 2021, Bourla revealed that he and von der Leyen had built up a “deep trust” through their text message negotiations. The agreement, which was concluded in May 2021, meant that the EU purchased up to 1.8 billion doses of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID vaccine – the largest single vaccine purchase during the COVID crisis.

– This court ruling could mark a turning point for transparency in the EU. When it comes to key decisions, particularly those affecting public health, secrecy should be avoided, said Shari Hinds, EU policy director at Transparency International.

“The elephant who wasn’t in the room”

In 2022, EU Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly (2013–2025) ruled that the Commission had committed serious administrative errors by not even searching for the text messages. She called it a “wake-up call” for the EU institutions and said that transparency had declined during von der Leyen’s tenure.

– Information is being held back for political reasons and that culture comes from the top, O’Reilly told Politico in 2023, also criticizing von der Leyen’s absence during the trial:

– The elephant who wasn’t in the room. The one person who could tell us everything wasn’t there.

The European Commission has repeatedly refused to comment on the case, but an official claimed at a press conference that the vaccine agreements were negotiated with the full support of the member states.

“Transparency must be a priority”

The court has previously criticized the Commission’s censorship of the vaccine contracts, large parts of which have been classified as confidential on the grounds of commercial interests.

Tilly Metz, a Green MEP, was one of many who soon wondered who or what was behind von der Leyen’s reluctance to share the information.

– She gets bad advice there. If you want the public to be confident and trust the politicians and what they do – and the contacts they do with industry – you have to put the focus on transparency.

“Confused” dossier

During a hearing in November 2023, judges expressed skepticism about the Commission’s refusal to hand over the text messages. When the Commission’s lawyers finally acknowledged that the messages existed, they were met with laughter in the courtroom.

– We do not deny that they exist, said Commission lawyer Paolo Stancanelli during the hearing. He defended the Commission’s actions by arguing that the text messages were not relevant to the contract negotiations – a claim that the judges sharply questioned.

One judge, José Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, ruled that the Commission had not taken “adequate and diligent measures” to justify the secrecy, while another, Paul Nihoul, criticized the “relatively confused” dossier.

The pressure on von der Leyen is increasing further through an investigation by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), which is looking into how the vaccine purchases were handled. In March, EPPO chief Laura Codruța Kövesi also confirmed that Commission officials had been questioned.

The EPPO is refraining from commenting on ongoing investigations, but the case risks further increasing mistrust in von der Leyen’s leadership and is expected to make it even more difficult for her to hold together an already deeply divided EU alliance.

US defense secretary: “No more vaccine mandates”

Donald Trump's USA

Published 7 May 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Hegseth has previously described the slogan "our diversity is our strength" as "the single dumbest phrase in military history".
2 minute read

Yesterday, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth strongly criticized left-wing liberal so-called diversity and inclusion programs within the military and reiterated the message that there is no future for such destructive phenomena within the US Armed Forces.

In a speech delivered at the Special Operations Forces Week conference, the defense secretary declared that climate alarmism, LGBTQ lobbying, and vaccine mandates are over, and that from now on, the focus will be solely on issues that are actually relevant to the military.

– No more pronouns, no more climate change obsession, no more emergency vaccine mandates, and no more dudes in dresses.

– We’re done with that shit, Hegseth continued.

Hegseth’s statements follow a US Supreme Court ruling that gives the green light to the Trump administration’s efforts to strengthen the military’s focus by restricting the participation of transgender people in the armed forces.

The decision is based on an executive order signed in January, shortly after Donald Trump took office, with the aim of ensuring what the administration describes as an effective and unified defense force.

“The dumbest phrase in military history”

The Nordic Times has previously highlighted Hegseth’s views on diversity programs in the US military and how he condemned the left-liberal rhetoric previously used by the military leadership.

– I think the single dumbest phrase in military history is ‘our diversity is our strength’, Hegseth explained at a meeting with Defense Department employees at the Pentagon.

– I think our strength is our unity, our strength is our shared purpose, regardless of our background, regardless of how we grew up, regardless of our gender, regardless of our race, he continued, promising to do everything in his power to remove left-wing activist influence from the army.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
Consider a donation.

You can donate any amount of your choosing, one-time payment or even monthly.
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Dont miss another article!

Sign up for our newsletter today!

Take part of uncensored news – free from industry interests and political correctness from the Polaris of Enlightenment – every week.