Bertelsen and Okkels—how two government officials hijacked the Danish Covid-19 response
By Anne Sophie Andersen
The following is an English-language translation of a recently published essay detailing the past year’s revelations of questionable actions taken by two Danish government officials: Head of Department in the Ministry of the State Barbara Bertelsen and former Head of Department in the Ministry of Health Per Okkels.
My interest in these two officials started with the investigation of the former Director of the Danish Serum Institute (Statens Serum Institut, or SSI). Since then, the famous “mink gate” scandal and its subsequent revelations, and later an official investigation into the circumstances around the Danish lockdown in March 2020, filled in the blanks and revealed a repeated pattern of action, which to me looks anything but coincidental. Read the following, and judge for yourself*:
- Okkels incapacitates former SSI Director Mads Melbye, paving the way for the subsequent corruption of the SSI.
SSIs former director, who possessed unique qualifications for handling an epidemic, was incapacitated shortly before the outbreak of the pandemic due to an investigation by the Attorney General of Civil Affairs ordered by the Ministry of Health. Melbye states the following to (Danish newspaper) Berlingske July 3 2020:
“My lawyer and I received a 450 page report for comments and have pointed out in our response that the Attorney General of Civil Affairs has left out crucial documents, which would have led to a different conclusion. But the Attorney General has completely failed to take this into consideration. Instead, they have chosen to ignore our arguments. The report was written in such a subjective and heavily loaded language that one got the impression I had been convicted prematurely”
Source: https://www.berlingske.dk/business/seruminstituttets-direktoer-taler-ud-jeg-var-doemt-paa-forhaand
In August 2020, it emerged that leading scientists at the SSI had openly expressed dissatisfaction with their working conditions at the SSI and wanted to move their research to the University of Copenhagen:
In a letter from the scientists to the president of the University of Copenhagen, the temporary director of SSI at the time, Ole Jensen, was called a “hand puppet for Head of Department in the Ministry of Health Per Okkels”
On November 22 2020, Berlingske published an article in which the “Ministry of Health is accused by professionals of exercising political control over the Serum Institute and bullying Director Kåre Mølbak during the Corona crisis. Anonymous sources in the SSI confirm the narrative.
The Serum Institute has been criticized repeatedly for failing to share data with external scientists, especially in connection with “mink gate” (see below). Recently, Berlingske revealed that:
“Prior to a crucial press briefing about the decision to cull the entire mink population, a number of politicians asked to review the scientific grounds supporting the decision. But they were denied the information despite the fact that documents reveal the Ministry of Health was in possession of the documentation. Members of parliament criticize, and the chair of the Conservative Party is shaken.”
Furthermore, discussions with neighboring countries have been marked secret. On February 8 2021, Avisen Danmark (Danish newspaper) writes:
“Discussions between Danish health authorities and neighboring countries during the Corona crisis must remain secret according to the SSI, which refuses to give Avisen Danmark access to documents. This secrecy is subject to massive criticism by experts, who are dismayed by efforts to keep information secret from the press during the Corona epidemic”
2. Bertelsen forces March 11 lockdown in a panic
From the officially commissioned report detailing the circumstances around the Danish lockdown, Barbara Bertelsen emerges as the primary architect. Berlinske writes that she sent “long, persistent, insistent mails to her colleagues, arguing for hard work, cooperation, the necessity of a Danish lockdown. She plowed through British medical journals, snapped at the health authorities, who were too ‘optimistic’ — ’Hope is not a Strategy’ — and referenced the Italian nightmare with lack of hospital capacity and many deaths”.
DR (Danish Radio/broadcasting) writes February 1 2021 that she “in fact ended up sidetracking Sundhedsstyrelsen (Danish government health agency) when the most crucial decisions were made:
However, the director of Sundhedsstyrelsen, Søren Brostrøm, was used by the government to cast legitimacy on the government’s strategy in press briefings in spite of fighting against it internally. According to the report:
“The Investigating Committee has considered the possibility that the director of Sundhedsstyrelsen with his mere presence at the press briefing of March 11 2020 and with his participation in a number of other Covid-19-related press briefings has been placed in a position, where his role as the top medical advisor to the government has been used as part of a political legitimation strategy. In the material handed to us, there are several passages describing that the Director of Sundhedsstyrelsen has tried to evade participating in the government’s press briefings” (p 31)
It’s worth noting that government politicians were only involved in the process leading to the lockdown at a relatively late stage:
“Based on the written material handed to us, the Investigating Committee is under the impression that the handling of the Covid-19 situation during this phase, from January and far into February, is not a matter for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is briefed continuously about, among other things, the returning of Danes from China, and the Minister of Health gives a briefing on the matter at the minister meeting on February 4 2020. But during this phase, the matter is predominantly handled at the level of government officials, notably with the top official of the Ministry of the State strongly engaged in the matter from its earliest phase.” (p 156)
Internal disagreement remained strong. Berlingske writes on February 3 2021:
“It appears that there was profound disagreement on the Danish test strategy in the top tiers of the Danish government system during the weeks following the significant lockdown of society in March of last year. While the Head of Department in the Ministry of the State, Barbara Bertelsen, and Minister of Health Magnus Heunicke pushed for massive increases in testing, prominent persons in the Danish health authorities — among others the director of Sundhedsstyrelsen, Søren Brostrøm, and then scientific director of the Statens Serum Institut (SSI), Kåre Mølbak — fought against it.”
3. “Mink gate” is executed
- A very dubious scientific report is ordered by Okkels
First the report from SSI which constitutes the scientific grounds for “mink gate”. In Weekendavisen (Danish newspaper) November 12, leading scientists call the study, on which the order to cull the mink population is based, of “very poor quality” and claim that it looks “fabricated”.
Source: https://www.weekendavisen.dk/2020-46/ideer/kludder-i-cluster-5
Scientists wonder why cluster-5 is claimed to be a potential threat against a coming vaccine:
“The publicly available data do not support that this should be a risk against the effectiveness of the vaccines”, Jens Lundgren (professor of infectious diseases, Copenhagen University) states in Berlingske November 13 2020:
Since then, it emerged that the culling of 17 mio. minks and the lockdown of Northern Jutland were not justified by the “cluster-5” mutation, in spite of Kåre Mølbak (former director of SSI) stating this as the decisive factor at the government’s press briefing where the decision was announced. Further, it is extremely concerning that the SSI was in possession of crucial data for months without sharing these with the international scientific community. Jens Lundgren states to Berlingske November 15 2020:
“The consequence could potentially be as grave as not being in possession of the right information for making decisions, so there’s no justification for the SSI to refuse sharing data. There really has to be exceptional reasons not to share these informations, and we are still looking for those reasons”
Source: https://www.berlingske.dk/danmark/trods-pres-fra-forskerkollega-sad-ssi-paa-afgoerende-coronadata-i
Following the criticism, Kaare Mølbak states: “It is mostly in the political landscape that focus was on cluster-5”
- Okkels convinces Frederiksen that the culling is necessary
Now, the question remains: if the cluster-5 narrative didn’t come from Mølbak/the SSI, who was then responsible for interpreting the original SSI report in a way that led to the government narrative stated in the press briefing justifying such dramatic decisions? Most likely top officials in the Ministry of Health — the same people responsible for the draconian restrictions in civil liberties contained in Denmark’s new epidemic legislation (passed by parliament February 23 2021). (Note that scientists broadly agree that the mink industry represented a real risk during an epidemic — the discussion here is about whether an acute emergency scenario was justified).
Again, it is worth noting that the idea for the dramatic culling did not come from Frederiksen but from Okkels. On November 29, BT (Danish newspaper) reports the following from the decisive meeting in the government’s coordination committee:
“During the meeting, Mette Frederiksen asks three times about the risk evaluation. ‘Are you completely certain about this risk assessment’, she asks according to a source present at the meeting. Per Okkels, Head of Department in the Ministry of Health, confirms the seriousness again and again. The meeting concludes with Mette Frederiksen making the decision to execute the illegal order: culling the entire mink population.”
The Prime Minister obviously chose to trust Okkels instead of the medical expertise. On February 3 2021 BT writes:
“Now, a note from the crisis staff National Operativ Stab (NOST) shows that Sundhedsstyrelsen distanced itself from that evaluation. At a meeting eight days after the press briefing the representative of NOST spoke up. The doctor was of the opinion, that there was a need to explain to the public, what the cluster-5 mutation actually was: There was no question of a possible ‘Wuhan 2’-outbreak, and the situation wasn’t as grave as authorities had first reported, the doctor explained”
- Barbara Bertelsen is — again — responsible for executing the solution
After the — now refuted — narrative about cluster-5 as a threat against a coming vaccine was formed in this way, Bertelsen was again responsible for executing the ‘solution’: a quick culling of the entire Danish mink population — based on a, for a large share of the populations, illegal order, and without consulting any of the affected professions about possible alternative solutions. Altinget describes November 19 how Bertelsen initiated the process:
“When one reads the government’s statements on the mink issue, it is very clear when the panic emerges. That happens on the night of November 2, and it is the Head of Department in the Ministry of the State, Barbara Bertelsen, who sets the train in motion. Once she is briefed about a possible problem with future vaccines, she immediately calls on six Head of Departments and the National Police [Rigspolitiet] and Government Food Agency [Fødevarestyrelsen] to convene at a meeting on that same evening. She also briefs the Prime Minister. A fortnight later, the government Coordination Committee decides to cull the entire Danish mink population”
Source: https://www.altinget.dk/artikel/mink-sagen-svaekker-mette-frederiksen-paa-hendes-maerkesag-ledelse
Barbara Bertelsen is former Head of Department of the Ministry of Justice. Therefore, it is completely unfathomable that she failed to secure legal grounds for an order with consequences of this magnitude. Berlingske writes:
“It was the Head of Department in the Ministry of the State Barbara Bertelsen who ultimately initiated the process leading to the government’s illegal order to cull the entire Danish mink population. The Head of Department was also present at the decisive meeting in the government’s coordination committee, where the question of legal grounds was raised in a number of different contexts. But at no point did the close ally of Mette Frederiksen raise the question of whether or not the legal grounds for the government’s decision were in place, and this has now caused criticism to emerge and questions to be raised about her role”
November 25 2020 Politiken (Danish newspaper) writes: “One media outlet after another is forced to reckon with the fact that the ministries do not wish to answer questions which may lead to an increased understanding of the process leading to the government’s illegal order to cull the entire Danish mink population”
4) What now?
From the above, we can conclude that two government officials are likely responsible for the Danish government handling the pandemic in a way, which has ended up severely compromising the constitution. A clear order of execution has also emerged: In preparation of the March 11 lockdown, Okkels compromised the leadership of the SSI. Then, Bertelsen initiated the action with her panic-inducing emails. Likewise, Okkels was responsible for procuring the grounds for the mink culling, which have now been designated as without scientific backing, and subsequently, Bertelsen initiated the process of executing the political consequences based on an illegal order. The remaining question is: why? How does it serve two high-ranking government officials to repeatedly force panicked solutions to problems based on meager — one is tempted to say fabricated — scientific grounds?
Here, it’s worth considering that Frederiksen is far from alone in her principle of extreme caution. Perhaps Bertelsen and Okkels are part of a bigger, international picture?
This evokes theories which I am personally unqualified to comment on, but which I hope our dedicated journalists will examine in the near future — and preferably before the state has been completely bankrupted and we have lost all of our civil liberties!
*All translations of quoted source material are my own, as are translations of the relevant titles of government officials mentioned in this essay. I apologize in advance to the readers for any imprecise translations of legal and bureaucratic terminology!
