Tuesday, February 18, 2025

Polaris of Enlightenment

Ad:

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

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…

Epidemiologist: Eight US states may ban COVID vaccine

The criticized covid vaccinations

Published 13 February 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Nicolas Hulscher, epidemiologist at the McCullough Foundation.

Legislative initiatives to ban COVID-19 vaccines are underway in at least eight US states, according to epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher.

He believes that all the bills and efforts are finally reaching a point where the federal government also feels the need to act.

In the US, many citizens are forced to take the shots in order not to lose their jobs or risk being excluded from society. Since the implementation of mRNA injections, it has come to light that a large number of people in the US and other countries have suffered various suspected side effects from them. In the UK, for example, thousands of people have applied for compensation for side effects related to injuries.

As of February 6, bills and resolutions are being considered at various levels of government in Washington, Idaho, Montana, Texas, Iowa, Tennessee, South Carolina and Florida.

– In the past few years, there have been multiple initiatives, multiple bills, multiple committee hearings, and all of this stuff is actively, and has in the past few years, been drafted up, Hulscher said in an interview with Vigilant News, continuing:

– It’s being considered now by eight states … at various levels of government, including county level and at the state level.

In Idaho, for example, Senator Brandon Shippy has introduced a bill to ban COVID-19 vaccines for the next 10 years. In Washington, 98% of the population has taken the “COVID vaccine” and it is a “very blue state”. Nevertheless, there is currently an initiative at the county level.

“The government must respond”

Hulscher is an epidemiologist at the McCullough Foundation, which also recently published a study on evidence of the risks of the mRNa vaccine.

“More than 81,000 physicians, scientists, researchers, and concerned citizens, 240 elected government officials, 17 professional public health and physician organizations, 2 State Republican Parties, 17 Republican Party County Committees, and 6 scientific studies from across the world have called for the market withdrawal of COVID-19 vaccines”, states the study, which was published in January in Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law,

According to Hulscher, the foundation will be actively involved in at least three of these efforts to ban mRNA injections, though which three he does not name.

– I think these bills eventually, and all these initiatives … will end up reaching a critical mass. And what that means is it’ll reach a certain point to where the federal government will have to respond.

Fired vaccine refusers welcomed back into the US Army

Donald Trump's USA

Published 28 January 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Thousands of US military personnel were forced to leave because they did not want to take the shot.

Thousands of soldiers were forced to leave the US military because they refused to be injected with the experimental mRNA vaccine during the coronavirus crisis but now they are being welcomed back.

– We will restore them to their former rank with full pay, Donald Trump promises.

At least 8,200 soldiers were forced to leave the army under the Biden administration in 2021 after refusing to comply with orders to get vaccinated against COVID-19. As early as 2023, notices were sent out to those affected that there were some opportunities to return, but so far only 113 people have chosen to take up that offer.

To be eligible for re-enlistment, soldiers must meet all the requirements for military service, such as weight, physical fitness and medical standards. However, those with a criminal record or other disqualifying factors may be denied, and even officers need to go through a simple reenlistment process.

Donald Trump, during a speech at his Trump National Doral Miami, promised to reinstate all soldiers who were fired because of the vaccine requirement.

– We will offer full reinstatement to any service member who was expelled from the armed forces due to the COVID vaccine mandate, and we will restore them to their former rank with full pay.

Will receive redress

The offer also applies to those who voluntarily left the military to avoid the vaccine requirement, provided they sign an affidavit to that effect. Although the offer is not expected to lead to a large wave of returns, it may increase costs for the military as retroactive pay will have to be paid.

According to data from the various branches of the armed forces, 3,748 marines were discharged, of which 25 have returned. Out of 1,903 dismissed soldiers in the army, 73 have chosen to be reinstated, while 1,878 sailors and 671 air force personnel were dismissed, of which only two and 13 respectively have returned.

– Tens of thousands of service members were kicked out because of an experimental vaccine. They will be apologized to. They will be reinstated, reinstituted with pay and rank, the new US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has previously promised.

Clearing out DEI initiatives

Trump also issued a broad order to eliminate all programs and initiatives related to so-called diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) within the Department of Defense and the Coast Guard, which is governed by the Department of Homeland Security.

The order aims to remove “all vestiges” of such initiatives that seek to “promote a race-based preferences system that subverts meritocracy, perpetuates unconstitutional discrimination, and promotes divisive concepts or gender ideology”.

It prohibits the departments from promoting or adhering to “un-American” theories that suggest the US founding documents are racist or sexist, that discuss gender ideology, and that promote “divisive concepts” such as “race or sex stereotyping”.

Under the order, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security must issue guidance to implement the presidential order within 30 days.

Zuckerberg: Biden administration forced us to censor vaccine criticism

Internet censorship

Published 11 January 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Mark Zuckerberg says it was Biden's team that forced Facebook to censor vaccine criticism.

In an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg says it was the Biden administration that forced the company’s platforms to censor posts criticizing the experimental COVID-19 vaccines.

The conversation covered several topics, but one that stood out was when Zuckerberg talked about government censorship and how the outgoing administration forced the tech company to weed out uncomfortable opinions – even if they were completely true.

– This hit the most extreme. I’d say it was during the Biden Administration when they were trying to roll out the vaccine programme. Now I’m generally pretty pro rolling out vaccines, I think on balance the vaccines are more positive than negative but I think that while they’re trying to push that program they also tried to censor anyone who was arguing against it.

– They pushed us super hard to take down things that were honestly true. I mean, they basically pushed us and said, ‘You know anything that says that vaccines might have side effects, you need to take down’ , the billionaire explained in the interview, claiming he opposed this demand.

According to Zuckerberg, representatives of the Biden administration contacted him personally and demanded that posts highlighting the side effects of the mRNA vaccine be deleted.

That’s ridiculous

Referring to the investigation, and the committee set up to look into the Biden administration’s censorship, Mark Zuckerberg went on to say that government representatives called and yelled at Meta’s team, demanding that various posts, even of a humorous nature, be deleted immediately.

– It just got to this point where we were like, no, we’re not gonna take down true things. That’s ridiculous… We’re not going to take down humor and satire.

According to Zuckerberg, his alleged refusal to comply with the Biden administration’s censorship demands also led the government to begin attacking his company through various pronouncements and government investigations.

– It was brutal, he claims.

With the departure of the Biden administration and the arrival of the Trump administration, the Facebook founder says it is high time to “restore freedom of expression” on platforms that were previously subject to widespread and arbitrary censorship, and where dissent was often effectively banned.

– We will go back to our roots, they say.

“Criminal censorship”

Not everyone finds Zuckerberg’s claims particularly credible, however. For example, author David Icke, an early critic of mass vaccination programs, points out that he was censored and suspended from Facebook back in 2020 when Donald Trump was president.

They are all at it – letting Zuckerberg’s criminal censorship be whitewashed to bring him into the MAGA fold while Biden takes the blame”, he writes.

Swedish MP pushes for accountability on mRNA vaccine risks

The criticized covid vaccinations

Published 30 November 2024
– By Editorial Staff
Elsa Widding calls on the government to stop the use of mRNA products until their risks are properly assessed.

In an interpellation debate, Elsa Widding asks whether Social Affairs Minister Jacob Forssmed (KD) will investigate the strong suspicions that the mRNA vaccine has a very harmful effect on the human genome and stop all use of the experimental vaccines until such an investigation is completed.

However, Forssmed is not interested in thoroughly investigating the harmful effects of the vaccine, claiming that the controls are already “rigorous and comprehensive”. Nor does he seem to want to take any personal responsibility for the consequences of mRNA technology.

Independent member of the Swedish Parliament Elsa Widding, addressed an interpellation to Minister of Social Affairs Jacob Forssmed in light of the experimental mRNA vaccine during the COVID crisis and the dangers and negative health effects suspected to be linked to the vaccine.

Widding refers to a wide range of experts and points out how there is a lot of evidence to suggest that mRNA vaccines can, among other things, be contaminated with bacterial DNA and thus carry a risk of very serious damage to human health.

– This is because synthetic foreign DNA is encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles, which can then integrate into human cells, leading to genomic instability, cancer, immune system disorders and adverse hereditary effects.

“Will the Minister take responsibility?”

She therefore asks Forssmed whether he will set up an independent investigation into the strong suspicions that the vaccine affects the human genome and whether he will stop all use of products based on mRNA technology until the above investigation is completed.

– If the Minister chooses not to stop the use of mRNA technology in Sweden, will the Minister take full responsibility for the consequences? she asks.

However, Forssmed does not seem to be prepared to take any personal responsibility at all and he calls the process of checking the vaccine “rigorous and comprehensive“.

I have good faith in the process related to the control and monitoring of medicines and vaccines, and I believe it is important that those who are deemed to be at risk of serious illness from COVID-19 can continue to receive the protection offered by the vaccine, he says.

“Dark shadow hangs over the authorities”

Widding soon becomes visibly frustrated in the debate that the Minister for Social Affairs does not seem to be interested in answering her questions at all and also seems to misunderstand what she is trying to get across.

– So the question is not whether the contaminating foreign DNA integrates into the DNA of human cells, but how often this happens and how serious the effects are.

– The genetic risks to humans and their offspring are unknown. That is why further scientific studies to determine these risks are urgently needed. Similarly, the government should investigate, for example, excess mortality, which remains very high in the Western world. If you look at the years 2020, 2021 and 2022, you can see that it was highest in 2021, when vaccination started, and still very high in 2022. Why is this not being investigated? Is there a link with the vaccines or not? she continues.

The independent MP argues that the monitoring of mRNA vaccines is not at all as “rigorous and comprehensive” as Forssmed claims – instead, many rules and best practices for clinical trials were violated during the COVID crisis.

– Someone – the manufacturer – has been sloppy in the manufacturing process of the modified mRNA vaccine, and the authorities have let them get away with it. I would therefore say that a very dark shadow hangs over the same authorities that the Minister is defending. Safe and effective vaccines cannot be produced as long as regulators do not act in the public interest.

Not preventing the spread of infection

Forssmed continues to avoid Widdings’ questions and instead declares that he is “confident that the vaccines used against COVID-19 are of good quality and that they are safe and effective against serious illness and death“.

It is problematic that this type of non-scientific claims are spread, and it is of course not relevant to stop vaccinations with safe, effective and approved vaccines, the Minister continued.

Ms. Widdings’ irritation at the minister’s dodging of her questions is growing, and she also points out that the authorities may not have as much credibility on the vaccine issue as they would like to claim.


Translation: Head-in-the-sand behavior from Social Affairs Minister Forssmed.

– First, COVID-19 vaccines have never even been tested for their ability to block virus transmission and thus do not protect against the spread of infection. European regulators, as well as governments and state bodies, misled people to get them to accept these products. Hasn’t this affected the credibility of the authorities? Here I would like to remind the Council of State of the text of the Nuremberg Code, that is, the prohibition of subjecting people to experiments and of forcing, pressuring or persuading people to participate in medical experiments against their will.

– Second, the COVID-19 vaccines resulted in an unprecedented level of reported adverse events, including deaths. Moreover, analysis of public data shows that it was completely random which batch of vaccine a person received and thus also random which side effects the person suffered after the shot. Those who were unlucky enough to receive a shot from a really bad batch of modified mRNA vaccine had a 1 in 20 risk of becoming very seriously ill or dying. Others, who received their vaccine from the most favorable batch, had a minimal risk of illness or death.

– Third, analysis by several independent scientists now shows that Pfizer’s and Moderna’s products were contaminated with varying and uniquely high levels of residual DNA. It is this contamination that is at the heart of today’s debate…How can a vaccine be considered safe and effective when hardly anyone even knows what it contains?

“Affects the brain, heart and lungs”

Widding also highlights how the pressure for Swedes to take the experimental vaccines was enormous and how people were fooled into thinking they were preventing the spread of infection if they were vaccinated even though this was not the case.

She highlights how modified mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 pose health risks that were not adequately studied before the vaccines were granted emergency approval and began to be injected into the world’s populations.

– The lipid nanoparticles do not stop at the injection site but reach the bloodstream and thus several organs. If cells in the blood vessels absorb these particles, they will cause vascular damage and blood clots, leading to an increased risk of stroke, heart attack and other acute vascular diseases. The Minister should know this if he has read the data from Pfizer. All these conditions are well documented in the medical literature and in national adverse event reporting systems. Full stop. Similarly, lipid nanoparticles can affect organs such as the brain, heart, lungs, kidneys, etc.

Vaccine manufacturers must be scrutinized

– While these risks apply to all mRNA vaccine technology, the potentially serious health risks due to the contamination with bacterial DNA we are talking about today also need to be addressed. The development of safe and effective vaccines depends on transparent and reliable oversight of vaccine manufacturers. Positive change starts with the recognition of errors, and this process must start immediately before more lives are lost in a careless and unnecessary way. A huge responsibility rests here on the shoulders of the Prime Minister, she concluded.

Despite repeated calls and direct questions, Forssmed continues to refuse to answer them, instead repeating mantras such as “we need to continue vaccinating” and that “it is important that people in risk groups receive vaccines“.

It is important that we continue to stand up for science and the thousands of researchers who say that this is good and important and protects against severe disease and death, he says.