Tuesday, February 11, 2025

Polaris of Enlightenment

Ad:

Norwegian parliament votes to tighten infection control law

The covid repression

Published 22 December 2023
– By Editorial Staff
Norway's Labor Party prime minister, Jonas Gahr Støre.

The Norwegian government will have the right to impose strict closures on society without parliamentary approval, according to a new bill passed on Monday. The proposal has been strongly criticized, with the Venstre party calling it a “weakening of democracy”.

During the Corona crisis, Norway chose to shut down society and impose severe restrictions on citizens. In order to implement these measures, the government had to seek approval from the Norwegian Parliament, which gave it the power to make temporary changes to the Communicable Diseases Act and shut down society.

A recently published study found that while Norway’s strategy saved about 2,000 lives, most of them over the age of 80, it cost society about NOK 133 million per life saved, which is about 100 times the normal cost of treating deadly diseases. The Norwegian researchers noted in the study that Sweden, which did not shut down society but relied on herd immunity, had a more effective strategy than Norway.

The Ministry of Health has now introduced a bill that will allow it to issue regulations on isolation, quarantine and other restrictions on movement in the event of a serious outbreak of a common dangerous infectious disease. In other words, the government will be able to impose strict infection control measures without the approval of the elected parliament.

Critics: Goes against democracy

On Monday evening, 111 members of parliament voted in favor of the bill and 55 against, according to the national broadcaster NRK. Liberal Party leader Sylvi Listhaug called the vote a “weakening of democracy.”

– Unfortunately, this has been a remarkable day in recent Norwegian political history, Listhaug told NRK and continues:

I am disappointed that Erna Solberg and the Conservatives have given the government a majority for a proposal that could lead to very intrusive measures in people’s private lives by bypassing the necessary parliamentary control in the Storting. The result is a weakening of our democracy.

The proposal has also been criticized by the Norwegian Liberals, Fremskrittspartiet and Kristelig Folkeparti.

The new bill has also been criticized by the media in recent weeks, with Schibsted’s VG newspaper calling it “democratic madness” in its editorial, while the editorial in Aller Media’s Dagbladet points out that the Storting is depriving itself of power with what it calls an “authoritarian proposal”. Professors Hans Petter Graver and Morten Walløe Tvedt also criticize the proposal.

“The changes to the law that the Stortinget is considering are dramatic for democracy, human rights and Norwegian sovereignty”, they write in Aftenposten.

The formal decision on the bill will be made after the second round of voting in parliament.

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…

Biden “pre-pardons” Fauci

The covid repression

Published 21 January 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Fauci and Biden discuss covid policy at the White House, July 2021.

In his final hours as President of the United States, on January 20, 2025, Joe Biden issued preemptive pardons for several high-profile individuals, including the controversial CDC Director Anthony Fauci.

The measures are described as “preemptive” and aim to protect him and a number of other officials from potential legal action that President-elect Donald Trump’s administration might initiate.

Anthony Fauci, a former CDC director and government advisor during the coronavirus recession, became infamous to the public for, among other things, the involvement of the US National Institute for Infectious Diseases (NIAID) in coronavirus research projects at the notorious Wuhan laboratory in China, as well as for his close ties with pharmaceutical giants and globalist vaccine lobbyists such as Bill Gates.

Fauci is now receiving a last-minute “preemptive” pardon from President Joe Biden, who resigns later today. In addition, General Mark Milley, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, among others, also receives a pardon. They have previously been the subject of criticism from the Trump administration and Trump has publicly expressed intentions to pursue legal action against both of them upon his re-entry into the White House.

In addition to Fauci and Milley, the pardons also include lawmakers and other officials who served on the House of Representatives’ investigative committee into the January 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol, as well as police officers who testified during the investigation, Reuters reports.

In announcing the pardons, Joe Biden emphasized the individuals in question “do not deserve to be the targets of unjustified and politically motivated prosecutions”.

Pre-emptive pardons rare

Preemptive pardons are unusual and highly controversial, as they are issued before any formal charges have been brought against the individuals. Biden emphasizes that these pardons do not imply any admission of guilt, but are intended to prevent unfair judicial processes. These are in reference to President-elect Donald Trump, who has previously indicated that he intends to target political opponents and consider pardons for those involved in the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2020.

Joe Biden’s pardon rush marks an unusual use of the presidential pardon power, with observers noting that this could become a benchmark for future administrations in dealing with political disagreements.

Overall, Biden is the US president who has pardoned the most people in one term, including his son Hunter Biden, who has been implicated in several corruption scandals, including through the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

More US children in psychiatric care during covid crisis

The covid repression

Published 15 April 2024
– By Editorial Staff
The greatest increase in mental health problems was among girls.

The number of children with serious mental health problems increased significantly during the coronavirus crisis in the United States. Pediatric emergency departments saw more children and teens needing psychiatric care than before, according to a study.

The study, published in Academic Emergency Medicine, compared admissions to nine pediatric emergency departments in the US between 2017 and 2022 for children aged five to 17. It was further divided into the periods of January 2017 to February 2020 (pre-pandemic), March 2020 to December 2020 (early pandemic), and all of 2021 (mid-pandemic) and all of 2022 (late pandemic).

It showed that there was a large increase in the number of children admitted to psychiatric wards during the coronavirus crisis compared to before. Visits in which a child spent more than 12 hours in a psychiatric emergency department increased from 7% to 15% in 2021 and to nearly 20% in 2022. The number of children diagnosed with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and even substance abuse also increased during the coronavirus crisis.

The number of girls seeking emergency care for psychiatric problems increased the most, according to the study. This was particularly true in 2021 and 2022.

“Unique vulnerability for girls”

– We observed a unique vulnerability for girls during the pandemic, which indicates that girls’ mental health requires more attention, Dr. Jennifer Hoffmann of the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago told the Mirror.

Hoffmann says the increase also shows that children’s long stays in mental health clinics indicate a strain on the US health care system.

– The dramatic increase in prolonged ED stays attests to the strain on the system and difficulties finding appropriate psychiatric care for children, whether in the hospital or in the community, she said.

Professor of Epidemiology: “The WHO must now atone for its Covid lockdown mistakes”

The covid repression

Published 29 March 2024
– By Editorial Staff
Gupta says that in many cases, the efforts of the WHO and similar organizations risk making the situation worse.

Sunetra Gupta is a veteran infectious disease epidemiologist and professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford University.

She believes it is time for the World Health Organization (WHO) to make amends for its damaging advice during the covid-19 lockdowns – and that it is high time to heed the warnings of those countries that depend entirely on the WHO to provide basic health care to their citizens.

Gupta points out that the WHO has insisted that herd immunity can only be achieved “by vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through a segment of the population” – something that Gupta says goes completely against science, which shows that “natural immunity is the primary way to achieve and maintain endemicity for viruses like covid, which do not confer lifelong immunity to infection”.

“My Wikipedia page (which, as we all know, is impossible to correct) continues to purport that the focused protection strategy, which I and others advocated through the Great Barrington Declaration, is “dangerous, unethical, and lacks a sound scientific basis”, in spite of the mounting evidence of the harms of lockdown and the feasibility of reducing individual risk among the vulnerable”, she writes in an opinion piece in The Telegraph.

Gupta also points out that the WHO’s chief scientist, Jeremy Farrar, has vilified and demonized those who have dared to point out that the harms of the lockdown policy far outweigh the benefits.

“And yet, I am unmoved by efforts on part of spokespersons from developed countries to challenge the efforts of the WHO to put in place a ‘pandemic prevention, preparedness and response accord‘”, she continues.

“Complacent statements”

She admits that a global agreement on pandemic response could indeed be “enormously useful” if based on logical principles – such as remote islands closing their borders until a vaccine is available to protect their vulnerable populations.

“[…] We could have supported them to mitigate the costs of shutting borders (especially for an economy that is dependent on tourism), and they might have in turn conducted extensive safety and immunogenicity trials to advance our vaccine development efforts. […] Instead, we were obliged to endure egregiously self-congratulatory pronouncements from the leaders of these geographically isolated human settlements, and the obtuse endorsements of both the experts and the general public living in areas where it was clear that closing borders to keep the virus out was no longer an option”.

She says “the fundamental problem” is “a profound misunderstanding” of how covid-19 unfolded and “what measures should have been taken to minimise its harms”.

Gupta also believes that while the public is becoming increasingly aware that lockdowns are a wholly inappropriate tool for dealing with viruses like covid-19, which has a very low mortality rate in the vast majority of cases, there is still reason to be optimistic that WHO can return to its former principles of trying to “use our collective resources to effect the greatest good for the world’s population”.

Could make things worse

“A much greater threat resides in the potential enactment of these policies in the Global South, and we need to listen very carefully to the warnings that issue from countries which are beholden to the WHO for the delivery of basic healthcare and life-saving vaccines. These are the regions which are vulnerable to the effects of treaties composed, even in good faith, to “prevent and prepare” for pandemics. Such interventions can leave these countries immeasurably worse off”, she warns.

“The WHO has made some very embarrassing mistakes in its response to the Covid pandemic, in what might be described as a paroxysm of philanthrocapitalism, but I am not sure that railing against the proposed treaty will encourage the course correction that is needed. It is, however, an opportunity for the Global South to highlight the striking power imbalance that exists in the distribution of health, as well as wealth, and how even the most well-meaning efforts of international organisations can serve to exacerbate these existing inequalities”, the professor concludes.

Swedish Harvard professor fired for criticizing vaccine mandate

The covid repression

Published 16 March 2024
– By Editorial Staff
The professor has been at Harvard University since 2003.

Swedish epidemiologist and professor Martin Kulldorff was forced to leave his position at Harvard University because of his views on compulsory vaccination and lockdown policies. The professor stresses the importance of restoring “academic freedom” at the university, saying that “science cannot survive in a society that does not value truth”.

Professor Kulldorff was a prominent opponent of mandatory vaccination and school closures during the coronavirus crisis. Together with Professor Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford, he published the Great Barrington Declaration 2020, which argues for age-based protection rather than universal lockdowns, and makes specific proposals on how to better protect the elderly while allowing children and young adults to live near-normal lives. In addition to the three professors, the statement had nearly one million signatures, including tens of thousands of researchers and health professionals.

“The declaration made clear that there was no scientific consensus for school closures and many other lockdown measures”, Kulldorff explains in an essay in City Journal.

The professor also said the vaccine withdrawals were “unscientific and unethical”, arguing instead that natural immunity is the way to go. He himself has spent two decades working with US authorities to develop vaccine safety systems. These views earned Kulldorff and the other professors strong criticism from their colleagues and the public. Now the epidemiologist says he no longer works at Harvard University, where he has held a position since 2003.

“I am no longer a professor of medicine at Harvard”, he writes. “The Harvard motto is Veritas, Latin for truth. But, as I discovered, truth can get you fired”.

“Science cannot survive”

The epidemiologist also defended Sweden’s milder restrictions, arguing that it was good to keep schools and kindergartens open because “interrupting their education would be detrimental to them.” But he was not allowed to publish his views in the US media, he says.

“With schools open, Sweden had zero Covid deaths in the one-to-15 age group, while teachers had the same mortality as the average of other professions. I supported the Swedish approach in op-eds published in my native Sweden, but despite being a Harvard professor, I was unable to publish my thoughts in American media”.

The professor believes that Harvard should reinstate “academic freedom” and stop the “cancellation culture” if it wants to “earn and regain public trust”.

“Science cannot survive in a society that does not value truth and strive to discover it”, he writes.

Martin Kulldorff was born in Lund in 1962, but grew up in Umeå in northern Sweden. After studying at Umeå University, Kulldorff moved to the United States where he received his medical license at Cornell University. He has also worked at the University of Connecticut and Uppsala University as an assistant professor. He also worked as a researcher at the US National Institutes of Health.

Since 2003, he has been a professor of medicine at Harvard University.