Look W.H.O’s Stealing Our Health – We Can Take It Back | Dr. Tess Lawrie

SUMMARY KEYWORDS
people, health, world, pandemic, vaccines, council, power, journals, conversation, published, governments, question, countries, years, document, family, food, treaty, day, money
SPEAKERS
Will Dove, Dr. Tess Lawrie

Will Dove 00:00
As many of you are aware of the medical tyranny being advanced by the World Health Organization, including the current international treaty, which, if ratified, would give the WHO dictatorial powers over health policies and member countries around the world. We are joined today from Great Britain by Dr. Tess Lawrie, one of the cofounders of the World Council for Health, an international organization of medical, scientific and legal experts working to become an alternative to the WHO and hopefully in time, a replacement. Dr. Lawrie is the director of EBMC Limited, and EBMC Squared CIC, a health and research company. Tess is a frequent member of technical teams responsible for developing international guidelines for peer reviewed publications, having received in excess of 4,000 citations and her ResearchGate score, is among the top 5% of ResearchGate members. Dr. Lawrie, thanks so much for joining us today.

Dr. Tess Lawrie 01:11
Thank you. Well, it’s great to be here,

Will Dove 01:12
Could you begin, could you begin by giving our viewers an overview of the World Council for Health?

Dr. Tess Lawrie 01:18
Yes. I wonder if I could share some slides because then I’d be able to show you our partners and what we’ve been doing the past eight months?

Will Dove 01:27
Yes, please do.

Dr. Tess Lawrie 01:28
In the World Council for Health, we see the COVID crisis of the past two years, an opportunity for great change, and opportunity to really create the world that we want to live in and to optimize our health and the health of our planet. The values of the Council are a fivefold, we at World Council for Health see, the COVID crisis has been an opportunity for great change and opportunity for us to create the type of world that we want to live in. And we will do this by preventing disease, respecting one another, taking responsibility for our health and the health of the planet and working together. And this is encapsulated in our logo which is a pink Apple representing wholesomeness and preventive health, the hand with the heart, showing that we stand up together, we stand up for good health and we do this together through love and community. We believe in a healthy world where everyone enjoys information, transparency, access to medicines, and support to optimize our health, while respecting individual health choices without fear of discrimination or persecution. We believe in a world where we keep our water and our air clean, our food uncontaminated, and our families together. The World Council for Health began in September last year. And we have over 150 partners across 50 countries and we are growing every day. We have several committees, namely a Health and Humanity Committee, a Medical and Legal Ethics Committee, a Law and Activism Committee, and among others, and these are volunteer run and led. We have a very small core team that is funded by crowdfunding and we have no conflicts of interest. We have no donations from industry or any other types of funding that would influence our decisions oN health guidance. We provide essential resources and in the past two years, the time of COVID What has been needed is clear. prevent COVID as well as the emerging diseases that are occurring as a result of these new gene-based vaccines. And we have most popular resources that we’ve launched in the last year have been the detox guide, as well as practical approach to home-based care for families on treating COVID. We’re not just about preventing disease, but we are about helping people, empowering people and communities and bringing people together. So you know, the prevailing narrative has been really divisive. There’s been almost a nurturing of distrust and mistrust between people. And what we really want to do is help people come together and realize the commonality. And we’re all in this together. So a lot of our resources are aimed at connecting people and helping them to communicate. We safeguard human rights and in December, after reviewing all the evidence on the gene-based vaccines, we issued a cease and desist notice, which is a document which is available on the website, which basically outlines the concerns with these gene based therapies and states that they need to be stopped. And anybody administering or promoting or manufacturing these vaccines may well be held liable if they do not stop. So and this is a document that can be shared widely and has been shared widely and downloaded many, many times from our website. We also have a new ‘Stop the World Health Organization’ campaign to help people understand what’s going on in terms of this massive power grab with the World Health Organization, and what the World Health Organization Pandemic Treaty or agreement or instrument, what the implications are for our national and personal sovereignty and, we promote health. So we have campaign money at the moment, and it will keep running and it’s called Daily Life, sparking ‘Know What’s Good for You’, helping people remember what’s good for them, or indeed teaching them what’s good for them. And there are many new and innovative ways of maintaining health in these difficult times. I mentioned this ensuring accountability and making sure that health authorities and analytical authorities do not overstep their mandates, we collaborate and educate. And you may have heard that we having a conference this week in bath in the UK, where we’re bringing together the most amazing international minds and hearts to Bath for an impersonal conference, majority of the speaker will be here in person. And we’ll be having three days of information exploration and collaboration. It’s also available online. So I’ll just go through what we will be discussing. So the “The Better Way Conference” we have seven questions and it’s I think the one of the most amazing things about the Conference is really that we are asking questions and providing answers. I think we’ve had two years of not really being able to ask any questions. So we are asking questions, and our panelists are tasked with providing answers. So it’s not about learning about what’s ‘water under the bridge’, so to speak. It’s about saying this is where we are now and where do we go from here to and how do we co create that better world and activate it. We have Del Bigtree, your viewers might know him, he host ‘The Hire Wire’ in the US and and he’s a master of ceremonies for the three days. We also have a number of really wonderful and quite well known podcast hosts, as well as the steering committee members from World Council for Health to host the seven panels. So just to get on to what we’re going to be what questions were asking.Firstly, what is our role? And how do we reclaim silence? Because it’s quite apparent over the last two years that science has been manipulated and is no longer clear and trustworthy. So how do we reclaim science and restore it to something that’s useful and not something that is easy to manipulate? Conversation two, this is on Saturday morning, this coming Saturday. How do we manage the health consequences of the COVID-19 Chapter? The conference obviously has to address this, it’s, you know, we have as as I mentioned, new and emerging diseases, including mental health consequences as a result of COVID. And so we have a number of experts, including Ryan Cole, who will be joining that conversation for Alexander Co. De, who will be looking into how we move forward, and how we help people who are suffering with side effects of the vaccines, for example. Conversation three, how do we actually create a world in which people thrive? While this is really the burning question, isn’t it? How do we get individuals who perhaps feel that things aren’t adding up, they can’t do anything, nothing, you know, nothing that we can do? Helps? Well, this conversation is really about how we can get everybody involved in creating a better world. Because every little thing that we do can make a difference. It’s really about motivating people, and making them realize that we can co create the future that we want conversation for how do we restore journalistic independence and media credibility? This is going to be another fascinating conversation because we have Brett Weinstein hosting this. We have the topic tree near Oliver number of highly acclaimed independent journalists speaking and we’ll be discussing the way forward for journalism so that it’s not just a mouthpiece really for propaganda, conversation, five, how can the law serve human rights? Well, you know, this is such an important discussion. We’ve seen, you know, legal systems being so slow and cumbersome. I think there’s been very little successful legal actions around the world in the last two years despite much concern and deliberation by lawyers internationally. So so this is really a look at is the law fit for purpose. And what is the situation as well there? Obviously, there’ll be a section of this will that will be dedicated to discussing the amendments to the International Health Regulations and how such a thing can be considered legal or lawful conversation six, how to identify and address environmental health challenges. And here, we’ll be looking at the fluoridation of water, we’ll be looking at what’s happening with farming, the use of pesticides, and radiofrequency radiation, among other things, because I think COVID has occupied our minds so, so completely in the last two years that we have completely ignored, all the other things that are potential threats to our health, and, and in addressing how to optimize health, we have to look at the environmental challenges. And then finally, our last conversation is really quite a wonderful one, we’re speaking to a number of visionaries, who have plans who already have blueprints, or have innovative health solutions to optimizing our health and, and leading us into a more healthy paradigm where we take responsibility for our health in a preventive way. And, and we get in touch with what, what is really good for us. So and so that so that is it, you can see, it’s we covered such a lot. And in many ways, each of these conversations could be a conference on its own. But what we’re really hoping to do is just to motivate and inspire people with all the possibilities, so that they can leave and feel that there is a better way and you know, a better way for a better world. And we will create it together. And and I think this coming together in person is really key to that, because it’s together that we thrive. So I think that’s the last hour. Okay, so just a quick little guide for a stand on what what we’re suggesting, because obviously, we recognize that not everyone can come in person and the in person tickets are limited. You can buy an online ticket, and watch the whole conference virtually on demand from the fire to Sunday. And you can obviously watch it thereafter as well. But we suggesting people just I want to pause, invite all your friends around, have a have a party, join, join the conversation. And let’s get talking and sharing because this is how we’re going to co create this bit away. And it’s not going to be on our own on our phones or on our laptops doing things individually. So if you can’t come to both buy a ticket and watch with all your friends, and and share the conversation. So So that’s it.

Will Dove 12:39
Well, thank you, Tess, thank you very much for that summary. There’s a few things in there that I wanted to comment on and asked for the information on. First of all, you did state that the World Council for Health does not receive any corporate sponsorships. But I believe it also that you do not accept money from governments and certainly not from the UN. Okay, so we can be assured that you’re working for the people and that all of your funding comes, I assume from private donations.

Dr. Tess Lawrie 13:07
Yes, yes, the funding comes through our website.

Will Dove 13:11
So folks do sign up, I urge you very much to do this. I have been privileged to attend quite a number of the World Council for Health meetings that happen every week. And they certainly have world class speakers, it will be well worth your time and your money to attend. There were a few points in the presentation that I’d like to expand on a couple of things that really caught my eye and the first one was the war on words, as most of our viewers are aware of the CDC, the WHO has redefined the word vaccine, so it will include these injections that they’re sticking into people. But could you expand further on that war on words as well.

Dr. Tess Lawrie 13:44
Certainly, I mean, just the word pandemic. Pandemic has also changed. It used to be something that causes widespread death. But now it just has to be an infection that you know, people that there is widespread immunity to. So words, not just words, but whole web pages have actually disappeared in the course of of the last two years. There is one particular web page that I’ve referred to quite a bit until it what it meant it disappeared. It was a web page. It was a World Health Organization webpage on global norms for sharing data. And so it was a it was global research norms for sharing data and research and public health emergencies. And this document actually set out what the requirements were in the event of a health emergency from a research point of view, and it included that you know, there was a moral obligation for research to share results early that seven results could be shared on preprint service. So, before peer review and publication said that research should be that you from low and middle income countries should be encouraged and supported and said that journals shouldn’t hinder the publication of scientific manuscripts and should encourage the sharing of data. So it said all these things but then when so so I used it in the context of presenting the evidence on ivermectin because I said, Well, here’s all the evidence on ivermectin. In actual fact, much of it comes from low and middle income countries. In actual fact, a lot of it is sitting on the preprint servers unable to get published. But here it is. And there’s enough evidence here to show that ivermectin works. Why is it not according to these global norms? Why is it not being shared and valued? Because much of the pushback was, you know, this, this is not good research. It’s not peer reviewed, and it’s not from high income countries. So I was not industry sponsored kind of work. So I refer to this page quite a lot and asked that question, because that page facilitated the rollout, the EUAs of the untested, the the inadequately tested drugs, the new developing drugs and vaccines. So I use this and then suddenly it disappeared, the page got taken down. And there were other pages, which were WHO stated the diver matron was widely used and was very safe and could be widely used. And that was in the context of the Arkansas crisis, the world programs. But then when I started saying, Well, look, Ivermectin can be widely used, because it’s so safe, the page came down, because I assume it’s because, you know, there was the prevailing message, the prevailing narrative from governments and government agencies, was that Ivermectin was not safe. And they had concerns about the safety. So So yeah, there’s been a lot of when you say worn word, yes, worn words and whole web pages, there’s been a rewriting of history to some extent.

Will Dove 16:54
Yes and your heart of the first researcher that I’ve heard that story from most of our viewers are aware that any real scientific information on COVID, and treatments for it is being heavily censored. And, of course, in regards to ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine other things like that, as was revealed by Dr. Breggin in his book. The reason why they’re doing this is because at least in the US, the emergency measure approval for these so called vaccines, it’s not legal, if safe and effective treatments already exist. So of course, they’re doing everything they can to hide this information from the public to have the mainstream media discredit these ideas. And honest researchers, such as yourself can’t get published, because they’re controlling the publications themselves. So of course, this is a major problem that we’re facing. Does the World Council for Health have any kind of plan for dealing with this kind of censorship?

Dr. Tess Lawrie 17:49
That’s why I think it is important to look forward and say, Well, what is the role of journals now that we know that many of the top journals are actually captured and funded by industry, one way or the other? Personally, I’ve been thinking about this a lot. And you know, we’ve been thinking about whether we should have another journal, whether we should – the World Council for Health should have a journal. And that’s, that is a possibility that is in the cards. But I’ve also been thinking about how so many scientists and doctors haven’t have actually resulted to publishing on Substack. And it’s not a bad way to go forward. Because you get it, you do get a peer review. So I think a new type of journal should actually be something where scientists can publish and then the peer review can happen in the comments and feedback without the peer review happening at an editorial stage, because what happens when you have peer review at an editorial stage, is there’s no room for genius. There’s no room for anyone who writes something that doesn’t go along the mainstream, it doesn’t fit with whoever’s reviewing the article. So you know, if you’re a genius, and you’ve got a totally novel idea, and you submit your paper to a journal, and it gets reviewed by three or four people who can’t see that, that genius because they’re not geniuses, for example, you know, that’s never going to get published, because they’ll say, Oh, this is just rubbish. So I think the peer review process now that one has a chance to step back and be objective is probably not a very creative process. And it’s required means that everything is very standardized. And even the format that one submits to journals, it’s all very standardized, and so a standardized processed and systematic. So in actual fact, I think the way forward I’m not saying Substack is the way for scientific manuscripts, but something like that, where you can publish your work, and I would think if it’s any good, and all maybe over time, the best ideas would come through and certainly one would get get, it would certainly be a more objective approach that can’t be interfered with like we have seen with the scientific interference over the past two years.

Will Dove 20:06
And I would strongly agree, especially since it removes money from the equation. These journals, of course, they’re being printed, they have to make money. And of course, they’ve been owned by publishing companies who determine what gets printed and what does not. When scientists can self publish online and have their work reviewed by other scientists online, and no one has any financial investment in this, the odds that we’re going to get the truth and honest peer reviews, I think are much, much higher. And of course, it also sidesteps the whole censorship issue. So as you said, we would hope that in time, the best ideas are going to come to the top and come to public awareness, and people are going to have a much better source of information, much more reliable source of information. And the second thing that I noted in your presentation was the elephant in the room. The things they don’t want us to notice. And I think we’ve just been talking a little bit about that with the censorship. But could you expand on that idea a little more?

Dr. Tess Lawrie 21:03
Yes. Well, you know David showed emphasis and a lot of work with first and also Mattias Desmet because there’s, you know, there’s this mass formation concept where people are all kind of groomed to behave in a certain way. So I think people have been groomed over some time, even before COVID to behave in this way where they feel we need to help others, we need to protect the elderly and vulnerable. And, you know, so I think there’s a way in which we’ve got a kind of groupthink going on. And we need to find a way of, of getting through to people and communicating messages that can kind of reach them that can get around these barriers that have these kinds of artificial barriers that have been erected in their, in their brains that seem to circumvent it. Just simple logic.

Will Dove 21:57
I’d like to ask you a question, have you personally been I don’t think this is something that the World Council for Health does much with but as a highly published, researcher yourself, and obviously as a very clear, independent thinker. I really keyed into what you were just saying, I am married to a woman who was a teacher for 25 years. And I think a lot of what you’re talking about comes from our educational systems. And something I’ve said many times is, there’s a lot of adults who, quote, never left school. And what I mean by that is, we all went through the educational system, where we were put into a little boxes in terms of our behavior, in terms of the expectations, we were told to respect the authorities within the school. And while this might be a great way to run, what’s essentially a daycare, it’s a lousy way to teach people to think independently. And that, I think, is what we desperately need to escape that elephant in the room mentality of don’t look at this, because we told you not to. And so what do you, as I said, as somebody who’s clearly a very intelligent person who’s published a great deal of research, who practices independent, critical thinking all the time. What’s your take on that?

Dr. Tess Lawrie 22:54
And watch TV?

Will Dove 22:58
Yes, completely agree.

Dr. Tess Lawrie 22:59
I see, obviously, we can be guided in many different ways. Education is the primary route, that that has been used to limit our thinking, Yeah, so we’ve got education, we’ve got the social media, and, you know, the marketeers know as much better than we know ourselves. So they feed us what they think is going to stimulate a response from us and keep us, you know, glued to whatever be at the at the phone, or the TV or whatever. So, we are basically with consumers, and we’re targets for a moral influencers, who want that one to profit from us. So we need to protect ourselves and our children from that. But, you know, what I have to say is, you know, in many ways, we have to be grateful for where we are at now. Because, you know, we’re at the real depths of everything we can really think any lower as a species, you know, the sorts of practices that we engaged in, we don’t look after ourselves. You know, we don’t look after our environment, our planet, we have very superficial and materialistic desires. So we have the opportunity now to rethink what — it’s all being exposed. We all you know, we’re realizing, you know, that we’ve kind of been misled. And so this is a great opportunity to say, okay, so this doesn’t work, we have to rethink everything. We have to rethink the education system, we have to rethink what we eat. We have to rethink what we put into our bodies in terms of water, in terms of thoughts, in terms of mental you know, the stuff we watch the all these dark dystopian films, you know that we’ve been weaned on. Our children, many of our children is 17 – 18 years old have been weaned on these awful horror movies. And what you put in is what you get out. So if you want to be healthy and nourished and joyful, you have to put, you know, healthy, nourishing and joyful content into your body, and you have to, every day just be, you know, be grateful and bring gratitude back. And, you know, anyway, I could talk about this for ages. But, you know, it’s just as I say, it’s just clear to me that we are just at a point where we’re at a very special point where we can change things, we can turn this around. But we’ve got to, we’ve got to act quickly, each and every one of us, we actually really have to do a little evaluation of ourselves and where we are, what we want, and where we’re going, and what we can do to change. And if each and every one of us does something every day that improves us, improves all of us and improves the collective, you know, and then as literally down to what you thinking, if you’re thinking positive thoughts, that’s gonna rub off on somebody else, even if it’s just in the way you walk, and the way you smile, and the colours you wear when you dress, you know, it’s every little thing we need to pay attention to, because time is critical.

Will Dove 26:05
Couldn’t agree more Tess. I would like to ask one question that I suppose is me it’s a it’s a wish list question. Because as I see it, and I myself have been a fitness and nutrition nut my entire life, a huge believer in taking responsibility for ourselves for preventative medicine, as opposed to treatment. And what we have right now, and I’m sure you’re well aware of this is a health care system is really a sick care system. It’s give them an injection, give them a pill, don’t treat the underlying problem, at best treat the symptoms. And in many cases, these medications they are shoving into people just making the problem worse. And of course, the WHO is behind a lot of that. They’re backing up that ideology. So I would like to — indulge me for a moment and let’s consider a perfect world in which the WHO has been removed and replaced with the World Council for Health, how would the global approach to health care and medicine change?

Dr. Tess Lawrie 27:05
It should be all have bad health promotion, so we would all be doing things that we wouldn’t get sick? Nobody, nobody would get sick, because it wouldn’t be disease centric, it would be all about promoting health and predicting poor health before you get there predicting and preventing it. So in the ideal world, we would be much more in tune with nature, we would be choosing to spend time outdoors, with our shoes off, you know, singing, you know, dancing. We are much more suited to dancing and singing, then what I’m doing in this office right now and what you’re doing in your office right now. So what I’m saying is, you know, we will just be a much, we wouldn’t necessarily need injections, obviously, there’s always the chance you you’re going to get, you’re going to have an injury. And so one needs one obviously needs hospitals and doctors and so on. But we need practices that we do ourselves, way before we get sick. And we need to be able to recognize when we are not… when we are not well, and when we’re not living in a way that’s going to support us to remain well. There’s a lot of challenges at the moment, a lot of environmental challenges, our water is not as good as it should be. Our food is not as good as it should be. We eat a lot of food that’s not good for us. And there’s a lot of chemicals in our food, that that shouldn’t be there. So there’s a huge amount of challenges. And we can’t continue the way we are living at the moment. And as soon as we recognize that, and we take responsibility for our health, recognize that nature is important. We recognize that working together is important, community is important, while mental health and general health will improve. And so yeah, so in terms of where we would all be of World Council for Health was making suggestions because I must just say their suggestions, it’s not in positions. It’s not telling people what to do and sanctioning them and threatening them or coercing them and saying, Look, this is what you can do to improve your health. And and it’s up to you. So we’ve got to get back to to that point where people don’t outsource their health to others or to governance, we need people to actively engage and take responsibility for their health. And that’s what World Council for Health intends to do.

Will Dove 29:35
I didn’t intend to belabour this point, Tess, but I do want to continue on this line of questioning just a little bit more because I think it’s extremely important. I have read myself from more than one source that approximately 96% of the chronic health problems that are suffered by people in our society are a direct result of lifestyle, and I’m throwing that figure that I have read and – please folks, do not take that as scripture. I’m not a doctor. I’m not a scientist, but that would leave, if that were a true figure 4% for which that is not the case where some illness has struck them perhaps as a result of genetics or environment, something happens that was outside their control. And I want to make clear the World Council for Health is absolutely not advocating removing effective treatments for those things, but rather that we would advocate a system in which people did take responsibility for the health where they did eat a healthy diet, not the manufactured food crap that most people are unfortunately, eating an extra, you know, incorporating exercise into their lives, which doesn’t just have physical benefits, it has massive mental health benefits. It’s been shown time and again, that exercise balances neurotransmitters and hormones and gives a brighter outlook on life. And you were talking about mental health. And one of the things that I myself had been looking into a few years ago was the recent research that shows that our outlook on life, our mental and emotional environment can actually turn on and off certain genes, can actually affect our genetic code. So I think this is an extremely important thing to be talking about this advocacy for the healthy lifestyle that so many people now have been deprived of. And I don’t think it is necessarily because they sort of chose to go and eat that diet and not exercise, it’s because nobody taught them the right way to eat. Our school system is still teaching the four of the five food groups, without telling people that at least two of those people really shouldn’t be eating them. So, again, I’d like your thoughts on that Tess.

Dr. Tess Lawrie 31:32
Here, I agree a lot of it is, is education, I mean, in terms of where we are with this disease centric system, where we have to get really sick, and then we have to take a whole lot of drugs and there’s never a cure, everyone becomes chronically ill and has to keep on its kind of hooked onto onto medicines for a long time, basically, the rest of their lives, many people never get off the drugs they’ve got on to is how the pharmaceutical industry operates. It’s not a health system, it’s a disease system. So the you know, it’s it’s a money making system. So the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t want people to get well, they want people to be chronically ill where the customers were their customers, they didn’t want to cure us, they want to give us their drugs. So I think once people can understand that, I’m hoping that they will wake up and think actually, ah, so I’ve got to do something, I’ve got to take responsibility and look at alternatives. Because I didn’t want to be on drugs the rest of my life. So that so that was the one thing I wanted to say is, you know, people really need to understand that the pharmaceutical industry is profitable, it’s, you know, to full profit. It’s not a philanthropic industry, it’s a profit focused industry, it’s a corporation, it’s a dead entity that’s making money from everybody, and they want us to stay unwell. So they can keep making money from us

Will Dove 33:01
Absolutely correct –,

Dr. Tess Lawrie 33:03
— they don’t want to. They don’t want to save all generic medicines or plant-based medicines. They want medicines they can sell for a lot of money for, so older medicines that your grandmother used or whatever, they don’t want you to use those medicines because they can’t make money out of them. So so that’s the one thing then the other thing just in terms of we don’t do the things that we should do, and all these things are good for us, you know, all the things that are bad for us, the one thing you didn’t say is that they’re not only bad for us, but they’re bad for the planet. These days, I don’t know if it’s popular in Canada, but these days, there’s always been the fast food joints. Okay. So now people who care about their health a bit more can afford more, we’ll order food directly from a restaurant. Now the carbon footprint of this kind of behavior is huge. So you know, not only are you not making your own food, you’re actually outsourcing your food making to a restaurant who has their carbon footprint, and then you’re getting someone to cycle or divert to you and deliver to your house so you can continue doing whatever you’re doing, watching the TV or playing a video game or something. And so, you know, we really need people to engage in what goes into their bodies and how it is produced. Because, you know, you get a lot of people saying, Oh, well, you know, I’m, I’m for this or for that and I’m against, you know, this or that and I put the I donate to this and that but there’s very few people actually putting their, you know, taking responsibility on an individual level for everything they do, be it the things they buy, where you know, where they buy it, how it’s produced, and, and what it’s what its impact is so this is what’s really needed now. It’s deep reflection and individual reflection on how we all live in behave and what we can all do to create a better world.

Will Dove 35:04
Yes. And I’d like to expand on what you’ve just said just a little bit from my own knowledge. Many people object to this idea of cooking their meals themselves with whole foods from scratch, because they say, Well, I don’t have time, it takes too long. And yet, I, myself and my wife, we’ve raised two children. And over the years, we have cooked virtually every meal that this family eats from scratch with whole foods. And I can tell you the truth of the studies that I have read on this. They say the difference between those who eat meals that came out of a bag or a box that they heated up in the microwave, and those who cook meals from scratch, in terms of time investment per day, is an average of about 10 minutes —

Dr. Tess Lawrie 35:44
And I think there’s also a reference about food that we have lost, because we have, we have been living in this time of plenty, you know, in the past mealtimes was an opportunity where we would get together. We’d also give thanks for this food because we were aware that many people didn’t have – were not as fortunate. So we’ve kind of lost all of that. And food has just become just another commodity and material that we buy so that you know we do something else so we can do something else quick, you know, that we’d rather be doing. So we need to restore that reverence. And I think that that reverence, is also recognizing and feeling a reverence towards oneself and one’s own body and mind. I remember when I was growing up, we used to joke, you know, schoolgirls. Our body is our temple, you know, but in actual fact, you know, the more I think about it, we need to think of our bodies as a temple. We need to have a reverence, we need to do what is best for ourselves and our bodies. And that includes cooking, getting, being involved in the preparation of our food, and feeling gratitude being fed and for the nourishment that it provides.

Will Dove 37:04
Yes, absolutely. I think we also just sort of came full circle there back to this whole idea of mental health and our associations, as somebody who has two kids, 18 and 20. Of course, once they enter their teen years, very often, those mealtimes are the only times in the day when the whole family sits down together. And I can tell you that even in our family dynamic where we even make a point of having a weekly Game night for the family so that the family spending a few hours together on those rare occasions when my wife and I might order a pizza, as opposed to the times when we cook those meals ourselves, there’s a very different dynamic, the pizza comes in and gets put on the kitchen counter, everybody grabs their pizza tends to disappear in every direction. Whereas when we cook those meals, the table gets set, everyone sits down, and we have 10 or 15 minutes together as a family. And that once again, leads back to this concept we were talking about earlier, of our mental emotional environment and how that affects our mental health and our physical health as a direct result. So once again, I would say that this is an incredibly important concept to get through to people, that it’s just it’s one of these things that is fundamentally broken in our society, and has to be changed for the good of the Society for the good of and I think of our children too, who suffer greatly when they don’t have that interaction with their parents and with their siblings, that in so many families is missing.

Dr. Tess Lawrie 38:28
Yeah, you know, it’s no judgment on the families, I think families having parents especially, actually, we’ve been put under such stress and pressure, you know, it used to be that one income family was enough. Now, it’s absolutely essential that both mother and father are working and, and still people struggle to make ends meet with two salaries, you know, rents have gone up power and water is expensive. So it’s becoming more and more untenable to live the way we are meant to live. And that’s why there’s so much so many people are feeling mentally ill and why we have so many people on antidepressants, and so, and young children as well. So as I say it’s a time to rethink everything from how we live, how we work, how we look after ourselves, and make change. And I think many people think, ‘Oh, well, I can’t help. What can I do? We need the money we need’. Well, if it’s not working, it’s not working. So let’s put our heads together and figure out how we can actually change things so that we do have the time to spend with our children. We do have the time to prepare food. We do have the time to grow food that’s good for us, because also growing food and having our hands in the soil and you know, watching things grow is just enormously rewarding for people. We know we’ve been doing it for millennia, and it’s just the last 100 years where we’ve, you know, we’ve got these supermarkets and corporate farms that have decided that they know best and can feed us. So, yeah, it’s really the time to. You don’t have to put up with your life as it is now. You don’t have to tolerate stuff that’s not working. Now’s the time to actually say, Okay, we don’t we try to it’s not working. Let’s create something better.

Will Dove 40:19
Yes, absolutely. I’d like to bring that back just very briefly to a comment you made much earlier, when I’d asked you a particular question. Your answer was stop watching television. And I think that the television culture is responsible for a lot of this, there’s no question that the world has become more expensive than yes, there’s very, very few families now that can get by on one income. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that both parents have to be working flat out. I think that the television culture has put many people into a mindset where they’re living at the absolute limit of their means. And this is what is causing all of this stress. It’s not that they’re having to work both of them work full time jobs, is that they’re working full time jobs, and they’re still deep in debt. And they’re still barely able to pay their bills. And of course, that’s causing a problem. And if we could get that mindset away from people – get people to get back to this idea of living below their means something which, you know, my grandparents generation just sort of took for granted. Of course you did. I think that would remove a lot of that stress. But we’ve had a very positive conversation, Tess, and I hate to take it in a darker direction at the end, but I think we have to, I’d like to talk about the World Pandemic Treaty from from the WHO, what they’re working on, and what it could mean for the rights and freedoms of people around the world. You’re more knowledgeable in this area than I am. Could you please give our viewers a brief rundown of what’s going on with this Treaty and what the WHO is trying to do?

Dr. Tess Lawrie 41:47
Yes. Okay, well. Well, there’s, it seems that the WHO and its influential owners, shall we say, seem to be trying to, to take control of our health and our lives from, or in a number of different ways. So the WHO Pandemic Treaty and there’s also this amendment, the International Health Regulations, and they’ve kind of coming at it from two different ways. And so and it’s, and it’s been been happening, while there’s been lots of other distractions. So last year, the new pandemic treaty which is, which is a document that states to the effect, that in the next pandemic, the WHO can get to decide what the name of the pandemic is. So embedded is a pandemic, so they can say, stop everyone, we have a pandemic on our hands, because there’s a new virus, okay? It doesn’t have to be there, as I said, that changed the definition of pandemic. So it would give them the power then to decide what measures need to be taken in terms of quarantine, and travel and so on – work. It would give this internationally and every country, it would give them the power to, to decide how the pandemic got treated, you know, how the virus got treated, or bacteria or whatever the pandemic was, how the how it was prevented, whether the drugs proposed were good enough and safe enough, how it was diagnosed, and how the measures were promoted. So it gives them an inordinate amount of power, basically, and their constitution would supersede all other countries’ constitutions. So they’re calling it an instrument now, it might change again, instrument agreement, but they require two thirds of countries, there’s 194 countries potentially that that could sign up to this. So they require two thirds of countries internationally to sign up to this treaty, giving them this sign this document giving them this power, and then it would apply to every country whether or not your country had signed up to it. So there’s there’s that and then and this document is to be ratified is it is a public participation session opportunity in June, where the public can voice their concerns and I would urge anyone watching too — you can go to the World Council for Health website, and there’s a link there that would enable you to find where you can submit your concerns to WHO and and budgets that’s to be ratified in 2024. Now that may sound like a long way off and you may think well I have a lot of time to think about this. But in actual fact you don’t because at the same time, as I said, as that we have the amendments to the International Health Regulations. And this is a similar sort of document. But instead of calling it a “pandemic”, it calls it says a “health emergency”. And this again, gives WHO sole power over any country if it if there’s a potential or actual health emergency, so in this one, they don’t call it a pandemic, it’s a health emergency, and it’s potential or actual. And it gives countries 48 hours to basically, to say the WHO would have the power to supersede all country constitutions and their rules would be the rules of the of the health emergency. And governments would have 48 hours to say why they didn’t want, they’d have to give a reason why they didn’t want to go along with WHO rules. So they have 48 hours to do this. And they’d have to give a reason. And the suggestion is that there would then be sanctions or punishment for those countries who didn’t go along with it or think that the WHO should be running the show. So WHO seems to think has done a really great job these last few years. But I have to say that they quite clearly have not. Many of the interventions they have proposed have not been evidence-based, and have led to harm – significant harm that they have not recognized or raised public awareness of and I’m speaking, in particular with regard to the COVID 19 vaccines. On their own database, they have 3.7 million records of adverse reactions of people who have suffered adverse reactions. And they haven’t once mentioned this, despite an actual fact that they have publicly on social media and so on said that these vaccines are as safe as other vaccines, which is absolutely, totally false. So, so I think we really need to get active, as individuals that our governments know that we do not want the WHO we do not want people to who have the power that they think they deserve, and are capable of wielding and, and that we will also not be bound by our governments should they choose to sign such a document on our behalf. The Director General of the WHO is Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. A person who, who should be holding the power of global health in his hands. And we need full disclosure of all the conflicts of interest, and a full account of all the decisions that were made in the last two years on and imposed on the public, before any discussion of further power to the WHO is allowed.

Will Dove 48:18
Yes, and of course, it’s a very obvious step towards a totalitarian global government given this kind of power. And so folks, I thee as always, in all of my interviews, you will find the link that was mentioned the link to the World Council for house directly beneath this interview. And I do urge you to visit the site and check out the resources that Tess has been discussing. Dr. Laurie,

Dr. Tess Lawrie 48:39
I just want to say that, you know, they’ve got this crazy idea called One Health. Now, One Health for the entire world, is just the most absurd concept one can imagine. We all know that we’re all different. And one size doesn’t fit all in one family, let alone in an entire global communities. So they really need to receive a wake up call from us as the public. And we need to make clear to them that we do not wish for them to have any more power.

Will Dove 49:17
Absolutely correct. And of course, folks, we’ve already seen this on a lesser scale here in Canada. Of course, we’ve got public health officers across the country, dictating health policy for everyone. And while these people might be doctors, they’re not your doctor. They’ve never seen you. They don’t know what conditions you might have. And so even sidestepping the fact that these injections are basically a bio weapon, and shouldn’t be stuck into any human being. It’s an absolutely ridiculous notion that these people sitting in their government offices should be dictating health policy for an entire population of people who they are not themselves treating and this treaty from the W Joe takes us a step farther of having this gigantic organization out there dictating health policy to countries citizens around the world. It’s it’s absolutely horrific, and, and, in my opinion, completely insane. So, once again, folks, the links will be there beneath this interview, please do visit the World Council for Health website and take those steps and voice your objections to this, we absolutely must speak out and do everything we can to prevent this from happening. Now, I had said I was taking us in a darker direction. But I want to finish on a more positive note. Because Dr. Lawrie, you did begin this whole interview by saying we’re in a position now right now, where we have an opportunity to rebuild and rebuild much, much better. So if you had some final thoughts for our viewers in that regard, what would they be?

Dr. Tess Lawrie 50:50
Well, thanks for bringing us back to that, Will. Because, you know, that is that certainly is my passion and the people are working with me to help support and empower people to towards this vision of a better way for a better world. And to inspire them to take action and take action together. So my advice would be choose to be positive. It’s an active choice. In this time, you’ve got to choose and choose the better way and then it becomes easy because it will it will open up for you. So you know, and you will have to co create it, you have to actively choose it. Every morning, you wake up and say I choose a better way and I’m gonna do something great today that that moves us in that direction.

Will Dove 51:42
Dr. Lawrie, thank you so much for donating your time and for giving us the benefit of your expertise. And I wish you and the World Council for Health, every success. It is an organization that is desperately needed.

Dr. Tess Lawrie 51:55
Thank you, Will.