The Missing Chapter in the Brochure on the “Pink Promises”

The Adult Psychiatric Department at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Vinderen, officially defines itself as an institution providing specialized and comprehensive mental healthcare, fully committed to patient rights and high medical quality standards. According to their official statements, the department ensures:

• Accurate assessment and diagnosis for each patient, using multiple scientific and methodological approaches to ensure the correct diagnosis for each individual’s situation.

• Comprehensive and integrated treatment, including psychological support, medication, and involvement of a multidisciplinary team (doctors, psychologists, nurses, social workers) to ensure balanced and continuous care.

• Full transparency and patient rights, including access to medical records, knowledge of what is written about them, and active participation in all treatment decisions.

• Priority for patient safety and human dignity, in a safe, supportive, and non-discriminatory environment, regardless of social or cultural background.

• Community support and ongoing rehabilitation, including reintegration into society, work, and family, to ensure long-term stability.

All these official promises create the impression of an ideal institution that adheres to laws and ethical standards and aims to make psychiatry a safe and healing space.

However, internal investigations and documents, including witness testimonies and audit reports, reveal that actual practices involve systematic intimidation and punitive measures, particularly targeting patients with a foreign background, and that the institution itself has been used as a tool to pressure citizens and critical journalists.

These abuses demonstrate a clear gap between the announced promises and actual practices, showing how a department meant to provide care can become a vehicle for threats and coercion, far from the medical and humanitarian goals publicly stated, in violation of national and international standards for patient rights and medical ethics.

A Psychiatric Process Characterized by Retaliation: How System Critics Become Targets in an Administrative Power Play

Within the environment of Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Adult Psychiatric Department, Vinderen, an institution expected to uphold high professional standards and medical integrity, documented records, internal assessments, and direct witness accounts reveal a complex picture of professional errors, conflicting evaluations, and structural conflicts of interest.

The documented events cannot be seen as isolated mistakes but point to a broader pattern raising questions about how psychiatric authority can be misused when institutions face criticism or accountability. The overall picture does not indicate an individual error or an isolated incident but rather a troubling example of how psychiatric power can be abused when institutions are confronted with uncomfortable disclosures or systemic criticism. In such situations, psychiatry can transform from a therapeutic practice into an administrative and disciplinary tool directed at the affected individual (the journalist).

This pattern poses risks not only to journalists but also to politicians, whistleblowers, social commentators, and others in critical roles. A system designed to protect individuals, when misused, can become a means to silence them.

In this specific case, psychiatric procedures were not used to achieve a genuine medical clarification.

A 13-Page Document with a Clear Retaliatory Tone

Marcus Gabrielsen and Ragnar Nesvåg prepared a 13-page assessment, a clearly punitive and repressive report dated July 28, 2025. The document was produced in just a few hours, without methodological investigation, objective testing, or comprehensive clinical examination, and therefore does not reflect a real medical assessment.

Despite this, the evaluation contained claims attempting to link the journalist’s work to an alleged psychotic condition—a classic feature of punitive psychiatry. The complete lack of professional basis, combined with the extremely limited timeframe and absence of clinical substance, underscores that the report was not intended as a legitimate medical evaluation but as a deliberate administrative and disciplinary measure to intimidate and punish the individual.

Actual Medical Findings vs. Claims

The reports simultaneously contain multiple medical statements that directly contradict the conclusions:

• “No hallucinations”

• “No formal thought disorders”

• “Explains himself logically and coherently”

• “No part of his story is impossible or can be disproven” (ref. Gabrielsen, 27.07.25)

Linking Journalistic Activity to Mental Illness

The report references his activities and journalistic posts, which are then attacked and treated as evidence of “obsession” or “paranoia.”

• Blogs

• Website

• Pursuit of exposing corruption

These activities are presented as evidence of “obsession” or “paranoia.” This connection completely undermines the medical narrative, as it treats freedom of expression and journalistic activity as a sign of illness—falling squarely under punitive psychiatry.

Conclusion and Legal Weakness

Despite the medical documentation, the individual was placed under involuntary observation, based on a legally weak standard formulation:

• “Preponderance of probability for severe mental disorder”

Even though the document itself undermines this assumption, the legal mechanism was used to justify the coercive measure.

Testified on 01 December 2025

Doctors Marcus Gabrielsen and Ragnar Nesvåg prepared medical reports containing serious breaches of Norwegian law concerning the rights of the affected individual and mental health. The reports displayed unjustified bias, racist insinuations, and professionally unfounded claims, in addition to violations of privacy through the disclosure of personal information irrelevant to the patient’s medical condition.

The individual was transferred from the emergency department to the psychiatric institution under sedation, under unclear circumstances, despite having refused admission and lacking trust in the institution.

The transfer and measures took place after the individual published investigations documenting irregularities in the healthcare system, raising questions about possible retaliatory motives and compliance with Norwegian legal and professional standards, including Articles 5 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the right to liberty, physical and mental security, and protection of private life against unjustified interference.

Manipulation of Medical Records: A Serious Breach of the Health Personnel Act

The individual was informed that his medical records were “blocked,” but subsequent documentation shows that the records had been accessed for several years without consent. This represents possible violations of:

• The Health Personnel Act §§ 21, 25, 26

• The Patient and User Rights Act (regarding access and blocking)

• Access control regulations in the Health Platform (Helseplattformen)

This dual handling using the records while simultaneously claiming they were blocked, appears as an administrative maneuver to create a consistent, but artificial, background to justify the coercive measures.

Timeline Between 03:00 and 11:00: A Systematic Regime of Pressure

Between 03:00 and 11:00, the individual was held in an emergency room without food, water, or the opportunity to assert his rights. According to documentation, he was:

• Non-aggressive

• Cooperative

• Logical and oriented

• Able to recount his history coherently

Yet, coercive measures were implemented.

Nesvåg subsequently drafted a parallel report with a medical student, which largely mirrored Gabrielsen’s first assessment, a clear sign of documentary harmonization to support a predetermined action.

Unethical Suspicion and Reuse of Legally Rejected Claims

The psychiatric assessments used previous accusations formally dismissed or legally rejected. Despite having no legal or factual value, these were reused in the reports as alleged “risk markers.”

The report authors also attempted to contact the police and other authorities who had escalated the conflict to identify a case against the journalist. All attempts failed, and the police confirmed there was no registered case or circumstance justifying involuntary hospitalization.

Using legally rejected claims and seeking external support demonstrates that the purpose was not medical assessment or treatment, but a retaliatory administrative measure to portray the journalist as a fabricated “risk.”

This becomes especially evident with the role of Christer T. Larsen, who used the term “potential danger” as a tool of coercion. He had previously criticized patients collectively, labeled them unreliable and dishonest, and expressed contempt for the complaint system at the County Governor’s Office in Oslo. “Potential danger” was thus used to create artificial internal fear and mobilize staff in support of the measures, particularly after audio recordings revealed multiple breaches of health law.

“Potential danger” was transformed from a precise medical criterion into an administrative pretext serving a predetermined goal unrelated to medical or psychiatric assessment, but aimed at silencing a journalist exposing internal misconduct.

Alleged Imovane Intake / Medical Improbability and Lack of Testing

The individual claimed to have taken 30 mg of Imovane before arrival at the emergency room. However:

• No toxicology tests were conducted

• No measurements support the claim

• Observations show he walked independently, interacted with nurses and Dr. Marie Veland, and was oriented and not somnolent

After meeting with Veland, he was transported in a state consistent with pharmacological sedation, arriving at the psychiatric unit in a wheelchair and later described as “very sleepy.”

Pharmacologically, a patient cannot:

• Be fully oriented and speak normally at the emergency room

• Then become suddenly deeply somnolent

• And awaken lightly shortly after arrival at the psychiatric unit

This pattern does not correspond to hypnotics like zopiclone (Imovane), but is consistent with procedural sedation after triage.

Documentation Gaps and Denial of Access

The individual arrived walking, awake, and cooperative, but was later transported in a wheelchair, unconscious.

• No notes or analyses support that he had self, administered sleep medication

• No pills were found

• Several nurses documented he was able to speak and explain his health and social situation

• Claims of a long psychological interview are false; the meeting lasted only minutes, with guards outside the room

He confronted emergency room leader Katia Monclair, who initially admitted a need for investigation and correction of the records but withdrew after “higher, level intervention.”

The emergency department refused access to surveillance videos and audio recordings documenting the nurse’s request for him to appear at the emergency room.

All of this occurred over more than five hours, at a time with no witnesses or other patients present.

Conclusion: Forced medication, denial of access to evidence, and rewriting of facts indicate illegal involuntary hospitalization disguised as healthcare, not a legitimate medical assessment.

A Diagnostic Collapse F22 in Just 9 Hours

The individual:

• Admitted at 03:00

• Assessed at 09:00

• Received F22 (paranoid psychosis) within 9 hours

• Diagnosis was revoked the same day

This shocking timeline, documented in official Diakonhjemmet Hospital records under the signatures of Marcus Gabrielsen and Ragnar Nesvåg, violates professional psychiatric standards and clearly shows the diagnosis was used as:

• A tool of fear and control

• A basis for coercion and confinement

• Not as an objective medical evaluation

Everything indicates the diagnosis was used as an authoritarian instrument to justify restrictions and enforce compliance, not to safeguard health.

Internal Contradictions, A Revealing Quote

From Gabrielsen’s professional assessment:

“No part of his story is impossible or can be disproven.”

This alone undermines the entire basis for an F22 diagnosis, which relies on delusional content.

Conclusion: A Structural Problem, Not an Individual Decision

This case reveals a practice consistent with “punitive psychiatry”, where psychiatric structures are used to discipline system critics.

The individual was:

• Oriented

• Logical

• Non-hallucinatory

• Non-violent

The case tests not only the professional competence of psychiatry at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Vinderen DPS, but also the credibility of the healthcare system in Oslo, and its capacity to withstand criticism without using medical authority as a tool for domination.

There is an alarming trend in Oslo, where medical practices have begun shifting toward extremism: psychiatry is used to intimidate and control, rather than treat. Old accusations are reused as risk markers, records are blocked, and the system’s integrity is at risk. Psychiatry risks losing its role as a safe refuge for patients and instead becoming an administrative instrument undermining fundamental human rights.

Critical Questions: Is psychiatry in Oslo at risk of being used as a tool of power and domination over individuals, silencing journalists, suppressing freedom of expression, and obstructing accountability mechanisms, rather than serving as a therapeutic and preventative institution? This development threatens the integrity of the healthcare system and its role as a safe haven.

Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Adult Psychiatric Department, Vinderen
Forskningsveien 7, 0373 Oslo, Norway

Marcus Gabrielsen

Psykiater

Ragnar Nesvåg

Psykiater

"Message received!"

Morning of July 28, 2025: Tension at the Adult Psychiatric Department, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Vinderen

Early in the morning of July 28, 2025, an unusually tense atmosphere prevailed at the Adult Psychiatric Department of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Vinderen, amid ongoing meetings, with the top floor functioning as an informal coordination hub.

The affected individual contacted the Patient and User Ombudsman, who immediately confirmed that there was no legal basis for continued involuntary hospitalization and demanded immediate release.

At 11:00 AM, Nesvåg informed the individual with a tense tone:

“You are free… go out now.”

However, the individual refused to leave until he could access the documents underpinning the decision.

Despite this, Nesvåg, together with his trainee, continued writing reports for several hours, filled with:

• Unfounded claims and personal accusations

• Derogatory insinuations, including explicitly racist undertones

• No clinical examination or professional contact with the individual

The reports carried a clear political dimension, as the individual is an active journalist exposing critical irregularities in the healthcare system.

The drafting and delivery of these reports were completed at 16:40, following a series of internal meetings. The documents reflected no objective or clinical assessment; instead, they appeared as administrative tools for control and retaliation, aimed at justifying a predetermined decision and achieving personal and administrative objectives at the expense of the individual’s rights and the institution’s transparency.

Patients’ and relatives’ experiences before the deletion of comments at the Adult Psychiatric Department (VPA) at Vinderen, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, reveal aspects of treatment that often remain hidden, and may be far more serious than expected.
Documents and witness accounts suggest that formal standards are not always upheld, and that patients’ health, rights, and dignity may be at significant risk. This includes, among other things, unlawful disclosure during the exercise of the right to file complaints. Many patients also experience stigmatization, public shaming, and humiliation, often resulting from assessments that appear biased, influenced by the practitioner’s mood, preferences, or personal concerns, and which fail to reflect the patient’s actual life situation.

Diakonhjemmet Hospital generally has a good reputation and acceptable professional standards, with structured routines and stable practices in its general departments. However, the poor reputation of the Vinderen unit remains a cold, persistent stain on the hospital, associated with the use of oppressive and arbitrary methods in patient care.
Documented experiences from the Adult Psychiatric Department at Vinderen reveal a troubling history, showing a substantial deviation from the level of care found in the rest of the hospital. Treatment here is reported to be marked by repeated violations of patients’ rights, complaints that go unanswered, and warnings that are ignored, reflecting systematic neglect and a lack of responsiveness to criticism.

This practice raises serious questions about the fate of the patients and requires immediate action to safeguard their rights and improve the quality of healthcare services.

Scandal: The Control Commission’s meeting ended in evasion and denial of responsibility »

Misuse of Authority and Public Shaming by Ragnar Nesvåg

Ragnar Nesvåg insisted on sending his reports to all relevant healthcare services in a public and conspicuous manner, despite the affected individual’s explicit refusal. This action did not constitute a medical assessment, but rather served as a tool for intimidation, public humiliation, and social punishment, targeting the individual to suppress his revelations of administrative corruption documented in his publications.

Hospital management failed to respond to formal complaints, indicating a likely prearranged coordination among the involved actors and supervisory authorities, whereby patient rights and healthcare laws were disregarded.

This action represents a profound erosion of ethical standards, in which medical authority is misused as an instrument for control, revenge, and coercion. At institutions such as Aker Emergency Department and Diakonhjemmet Hospital, power was leveraged to damage an individual’s social reputation and impose punishment, far beyond any legitimate medical assessment.

The events underscore how authority can be transformed into a mechanism of injustice, and highlight that ethics are crucial for safeguarding human dignity against systematic abuse.

Statsforvalteren,klage på helse-og omsorgstjenester

Legevakten Aker i Oslo,Katja Monclair

Diakonhjemmet sykehus, Voksenpsykiatrisk avdeling Vinderen

Psykiater Ragnar Nesvåg, Psykiater Marcus Gabrielsen

Kontrollkommisjonens Elisabeth Grøndahl

Revelation: What is Happening at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Adult Psychiatric Department Vinderen

Documents from the department, as well as patients’ testimonies and experiences, reveal serious unethical practices at Diakonhjemmet Hospital that constitute violations of medical ethics and human rights.

Incorrect Assessments and Unprofessional Evaluations

According to the official documents available, it appears that patient assessments at the hospital in many cases are not based on objective medical evaluations. Many patients have been subjected to incorrect and unprofessional classifications based on personal impressions or social prejudices, without support from documented evidence. This damages the patients’ reputations and destroys their psychological and social lives, especially when the evaluations are based on deliberate prejudices or stereotypes.

Violation of Privacy

One of the most serious practices is the recording of sensitive, personal information about patients’ lives, such as details about romantic relationships and partners’ names, or doubts about their ability to care for children, as well as doubts about their humanity and life skills. This information is used as a weapon to destroy their social and legal lives. In some cases, harmful medical reports are sent to patients’ general practitioners or family members, or to old addresses where the person no longer resides, and new occupants have moved in. This is done intentionally, worsening patients’ emotional and social problems and further deteriorating their mental state.

Unacceptable Practices

In addition to unfair assessments, these practices go far beyond evaluating patients’ behavior and include excessive monitoring of everything from body language and speech to details such as clothing, gait, and even how many times they go to the bathroom, which are then doubted and interpreted as illnesses or accusations. This monitoring is often interpreted based on cultural or ethnic stereotypes, constituting a clear violation of patients’ fundamental rights.

Racism Against Patients with Immigrant Backgrounds

Racism is a repeated practice in the treatment of patients with immigrant backgrounds at the hospital, where they are treated in a fundamentally different manner than other patients. The allocation of patients to departments often occurs arbitrarily, without clear objective criteria. While a selected group of patients receives a luxurious section resembling a health or spa resort, with freedom of movement, elegant furnishings, and comfortable facilities, patients with immigrant backgrounds are placed in a cramped, locked section resembling a prison, with limited comfort and personal space.

In addition, any concern or complaint from these patients about poor treatment is often recorded negatively in their medical records, limiting their ability to receive appropriate treatment in the future. These practices constitute a clear violation of equality and patient rights, highlighting a significant gap in the fair and objective application of healthcare standards.

Manipulation and Delay of Complaints

The Patient Rights Act grants patients the right to hold healthcare authorities accountable, but in practice, this law is ignored. Healthcare authorities use delays and complications to prevent complaints from being handled fairly. This slow and time-consuming process leaves patients in a vicious circle of concern and helplessness for many years.

Manipulation and Distortion of Medical Reports

One of the most serious practices is the administration’s manipulation of original medical reports to take revenge on patients who have complained. The reports are distorted, and a new, retaliatory document is issued, signed by a senior physician. This distortion makes it impossible to follow the original reports, protecting those responsible from accountability, while simultaneously worsening the patient’s condition.

Psychological and Social Coercion

When patients try to correct the situation or express their suffering, they encounter strong resistance from hospital administration. This resistance develops into psychological and social coercion, which reinforces the patient’s sense of powerlessness and despair, trapping them in a system that appears unethical.

Destructive Consequences After Discharge

The consequences of these practices extend long after patients are discharged from the hospital. Patients suffer from ruined reputations, as harmful reports are sent to their general practitioners, and in some cases, they receive negative evaluations that may result in loss of future access to healthcare. When these reports reach inappropriate doctors, they may begin to exploit the patient, worsening their health problems and creating tension in personal and family relationships.

Need for Independent and Transparent Investigation

The situation at Diakonhjemmet Hospital DPS has not arisen recently but has continued for several decades as an unofficial practice against specific patient groups. This requires an independent and transparent investigation that goes beyond the hospital’s internal frameworks. The investigation should include a thorough review of how patient records are handled, how diagnoses are made according to objective medical standards, how patients are assigned to wards, and how complaints are processed.

In such a sensitive matter, these cases are handled with a high degree of secrecy, creating an environment characterized by fear and a lack of opportunity to reveal the truth. Evidence shows that many testimonies and comments highlighting patients’ suffering are immediately deleted when posted on the hospital’s online platforms, such as Google, even when anonymous. In addition, those who dare to express criticism or report violations face threats of defamation and social stigmatization. This reality creates a hostile environment, making it difficult for patients or those affected to speak freely about the violations they have suffered, adding further layers of pressure and fear for those seeking justice.

Positive Contributions from Ethically Committed Staff

Despite the many problems existing within the system, there are nurses and other healthcare personnel who stand out for their exceptional work ethic and ethical commitment. These individuals work tirelessly to support patients, and their contributions have a significant impact on patients’ lives. Their efforts often surpass the significance of the physicians, and their dedication creates a positive and lasting difference for the patients. Unfortunately, this dedication is not universal, but it is important to recognize those who truly make a difference when facing the challenges presented by the system.

"The announced events provide a vivid picture, but what remains hidden is greater."

Dokumentasjonen viser at hendelsesforløpet eskalerte gjennom den aktuelle legen, som overtok kontoret til den pensjonerte legen ved Skøyen Helsesenter i 2022 og 2023. Dokumenter og vitneutsagn indikerer at hans administrative innflytelse ble brukt på en måte som skapte et klima av press og skremsel, ved å bruke enkelte helsearbeidere som redskaper for urettmessig påvirkning, etter at det dukket opp pålitelige opplysninger som stilte spørsmål ved lovligheten og sikkerheten i hans yrkesutøvelse.

Disse forholdene viser en kompleks bakgrunn som illustrerer hvordan misbruk av helsemyndighet kan bli et uetisk virkemiddel som påfører pasienter psykisk, moralsk og samfunnsmessig skade. Det har blitt rapportert om forsøk på å stigmatisere enkelte pasienter med psykiske betegnelser som ikke var basert på korrekte medisinske vurderinger, samt utarbeidelse av rapporter med straffende eller sjikanerende karakter, som fremstår som reaksjoner på at pasientene uttrykte fakta eller informasjon som ikke ble ønsket av enkelte ansvarlige.

Dokumentasjonen viser også bevisste forsøk på å true og stilne journalister og kritikere som avslørte eller dokumenterte overgrepene, inkludert implisitte trusler og press for å hindre publisering og undersøkelser, med mål om å hindre sannhetens fremkomst og beskytte visse myndigheters interesser.

Dokumentasjonen av denne saken reiser også spørsmål om lik anvendelse av lovverket i Oslo, spesielt overfor pasienter med utenlandsk bakgrunn, der det rapporteres om forskjellsbehandling som undergraver deres rettigheter og menneskelige verdighet. Dette viser et potensielt mønster der enkelte borgere ikke blir anerkjent som fulle rettssubjekter, til tross for at de har de samme juridiske rettigheter som andre, slik grunnloven fastslår når det gjelder likhet og beskyttelse av alle borgeres grunnleggende rettigheter.

Denne helheten reiser grunnleggende spørsmål om prosedyrsikkerhet, rettssikkerhet og skillet mellom medisinsk myndighet og individets rettigheter, og understreker behovet for en uavhengig gjennomgang for å sikre at helseinstitusjoner ikke blir brukt i praksiser utenfor sitt profesjonelle og humanitære rammeverk i Oslo.

helserett.com