Are you willing to give yourself the opportunity to choose freely when it comes to your health?
By Eva, Foreningen Lov og Helse.
If you are among those who did not understand that entering a Corona passport entails losing the freedom of health choice, then read on. For one thing is what you expect, something completely different is what becomes reality – because the authorities are planning something completely different. You may also have family members and friends who have consciously or unconsciously given up the opportunity to choose freely because they fear for their health and their lives. So we have two main groups in Norway: The first (Group 1) doesn’t want the authorities to make a decision about their health, they want to take responsibility themselves. The other (Group 2) is willing to give up the opportunity to choose. This group 2 also deprives everyone in group 1 of freedom of choice, an issue I want to highlight.
Freedom under responsibility
I have come to the conclusion that freedom is closely related to the word responsibility. You’ve probably heard it before: Freedom Under Responsibility. So I believe there is no real freedom unless we can also take responsibility for our own success and our mistakes. Unfortunately, there are many who do not want to take on this responsibility. Many people find it more comfortable to hand over responsibility to the state and blindly trust that the state will support them through their ups and downs. This will cause the state to control everyone, and you will have to comply with the orders.
What happens in a country where the state takes charge of your health?
Shortly before Norway had to shut down precisely because of the pandemic, a new pandemic law was introduced, but there may have been many who did not agree. The authorities chose to isolate the healthy, in contrast to previous practices where the sick were isolated.
Initially, the newsletters talked about the number of sick and deceased, but that was changed at one point so that the focus was only on the number of infected, based on what is referred to as a PCR test. The correct name is PCR method. It is a method of genetic testing that was invented in the early 1990s. in In the video below, you can hear how Kari Mullis, Nobel laureate for the invention of the PCR method, (died August 2019) explains how the PCR method was misinterpreted;
hut
This method has some weaknesses that are not evident, including the fact that it can have a positive effect on someone who was infected three months ago, but did not get sick.
fhi.no
Test results related to Covid-19 on helsenorge.no and in the essential journal
If a known infection has occurred in recent months, caution should be exercised when interpreting a positive PCR test result. This is because by PCR, non-infectious virus remnants (non-reproducible virus inheritance) can be detected for a long time (up to two to three months) after a person has become non-infectious. This should also be taken into account in the case of a weak positive result in an asymptomatic person without an increased risk of infection, as most of those with a weak positive PCR (ct value above 33) will be during the infectious period.
www.fhi.no- Test Standards – Download FHIL
It has always been difficult to know who is transmitting the infection to whom. are they:
- Not immunized without symptoms
- Not immune, asymptomatic
- Asymptomatic vaccination
- Vaccination with symptoms/disease
The method of injury and the period of injury
People with covid-19 are most susceptible to infection for a day or two before symptoms appear (presymptomatic period) and for the first days after symptoms appear. A person can be infected with SARS-CoV-2 without becoming ill (asymptomatic), and remain infected more. People who don’t show symptoms are more likely to infect others than those who show symptoms.
Taken from the National Institute of Public Health article on Covid-19. Professionally Reviewed and Updated 12.05.2022. https://www.fhi.no/nettpub/smittevernveilederen/sykdommer-aa/covid-19-veileder-for-helsepersonell/
When there is also evidence of vaccine side effects, but they don’t show up through the media, then we have in my opinion a poor basis for making such a blanket decision as introducing a coronary passport that makes it very difficult, not say impossible, for people who can and will take responsibility about their health.
With the introduction of Corona passports, the country will choose how to prevent and possibly treat a health problem. Those who have opted for natural immunity all their lives will be pressured to choose what they experience in an artificial way: they will be pressured to accept injections in order to move about freely, perhaps even spending their money as they please.
I would note that in the United States, many hospitals have been paid to write “C-19” on death certificates. We have no evidence of the same thing happening in Norway, but it would be good to clarify this.
Below you can see and hear how those who did not take the injections were mentioned in various clips of NRK News:
Here you can hear how the press describes the “unvaccinated” from the beginning of 2021 until the fall.
What does freedom mean to you?
We have now ended up in a situation where freedom can only be achieved by injecting into the body to get the green light in Corona certification. In fact, it’s not just about one, it’s about many – we’ve just heard that those over 65 get their fourth dose after the summer. If the information in the so-called alternative media were also leaked to what is referred to as the mainstream media, it is likely that more people would believe the warnings about the side effects of the “vaccine”.
Should freedom be achieved through a syringe stick To get a green mark in the Corona passport?
Somehow, I wish this was true. Imagine if it was that simple? Just like taking one pill for everything bad, but there are many who have experienced that this is not true. They have taken medication, but have not yet recovered. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they continued their lifestyle when they got sick, or because of misguided promises of good effect from medication? It is easier to accept only pharmaceutical treatment than to change your lifestyle. Some people choose to live on medication for life, and may develop side effects from the medication that lead to more side effects. How can one think that it will now suddenly be possible to solve a “pandemic” using two injections in each individual. Why should we trust that the state will solve it this is Time, when the story says something completely different? There are more and more varieties like these syringes Apparently It must protect against:
Fortunately, many are beginning to ask the appropriate question:
When syringes #1 and #2 don’t work as documented, why should #3 and 4 work like that?
This entry was first published by Foreningen Lov og Helse.
