Please join Brian Gerrish in this important interview with Dr Tess Lawrie, as she speaks out on Covid-19 policy failures, vaccine adverse reactions, regulatory failures and World Health Organisation plans to take total control of pandemics by a Global Accord.
Her excellent and informative analysis is enhanced by her uplifting ideas on positive actions to protect our own health.
Dr Lawrie is supported in this interview by Debi Evans, UK Column Nursing Correspondent.
What disturbed Dr Lawrie
In a detailed discussion, Dr Lawrie sets out the background to her work with the World Council for Health and volunteers.
She begins by describing how her concerns arose in April 2021, with an online conference concerning Covid-19 and the potential role of ivermectin as a treatment. The event was significant for her, as it gave rise to the impression that safe, effective treatments were being withheld from the public.
Following these early endeavours, the World Council of Health was set up to inform people and encourage them to take care of their own health.
Dr Lawrie states:
We produced a health guide for Covid-19 but were also looking at other ways to prevent disease and look after their health. We needed to step away from fear and go to physical and mental wellbeing.
Our World Health Coalition pulled together international organisations, including doctors' groups, holistic and journalist groups—in fact, any group with an interest in health. There are now 140 international groups working as partners, and covering science, medicine, law and activism in mind and health. They are supported by international media groups focused on finding the truth.
Dr Lawrie is well qualified to be a lead voice within the coalition, having been an external consultant to the World Health Organisation, working to evaluate evidence on specific medical and health interventions. Her expert input has included evidenced reviews of WHO stakeholder information, as well as guidelines for WHO medical and health recommendations, but this professional relationship was destined to end when Dr Lawrie discovered that the WHO was selective in its consideration of medical remedies.
Critically, she reveals how she completed a voluntary review on the benefits of ivermectin for the WHO but her review was ignored. This rebuff led her to realise that there was something very wrong with the organisation and its health procedures and protocols, and when her committed work with them was completed in December 2021, Dr Lawrie wrote to set out why she could no longer work for them.
Regulators sitting on data
Since that time, Dr Lawrie has been on a journey of medical and health discovery, fuelled by the question of why public health and safety evidence was being ignored. She describes that the world has not been in a normal process:
We were in a pandemic, so why were the WHO and other stakeholders not paying attention to the real-world health data? They had the database of drug safety, and ivermectin is one of the safest medicines, yet they were raising concerns about it.
And with millions of entries on their own databases for vaccine harms [VAERS, MHRA Yellow Card, EUDRAvigilance and others], they have said nothing about these adverse reactions and deaths, but have raised concerns about ivermectin.
I started looking at the conflicts of interest around the interventions they were promoting—interventions that did not have an evidence base.
They have access to a Covid therapeutics accelerator of $38 billion to support these new experimental treatments and therapies, but they are not looking at what we already had available to treat Covid.
In response to this statement, Brian Gerrish comments that the data coming out of the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the US VAERS system indicates that thousands have died, but we are in a black hole as to what MHRA as a safety agency has to say about the adverse reactions and deaths. When the UK Column and the public ask what MHRA has done to investigate adverse vaccine reactions, replies are not forthcoming.
Reversing the burden of proof
The black hole gets darker and deeper when Dr Lawrie states that she also wrote to the MHRA. She comments:
The MHRA data does not make it easy to understand simple things. For example, the same condition is described in different ways. We were also concerned at the huge number of adverse reactions, particularly when it is acknowledged they are underreported.
So we said, “Let’s look at what the GPs [family doctors] would see in surgeries,” and we grouped things appropriately, such as bleeding and clotting and brain.
We felt better to look at mechanisms for bleeding and clotting, immune disfunction, neurological, pain, pregnancy and reproductive issues—the things people were experiencing.
The range and suffering encapsulated in these data led us to conclude that the vaccines were not safe for the population.
In May last year, 2021, we sent a letter to [MHRA CEO] June Raine, and we got a reply in July 2021. I was shocked to hear [in the reply] that June Raine felt adverse reactions were due to coincidence; the sheer volume was enough to say by the precautionary principle that something was wrong. And yet she has previously said, “Yes, effects should be reported—and don’t worry about causality.”
So it appeared [that the MHRA’s attitude was that] the burden of proof was on [us] that the vaccine had caused it, rather than [on] the authorities to accept that there was a possibility that the vaccine had caused it.
At this point in the interview, Debi Evans, UK Column Nursing Correspondent, joins the discussion, outlining her personal attempts to have the MHRA engage on vaccine adverse reactions and deaths. She comments:
I was born 1958 [and so remember that] thalidomide had just 500 cases before it was stopped, but here we have thousands of reports and deaths and yet the MHRA does not say when enough is enough. And they do not define “safe”, and at the very best they are ignoring the word “safe”.
The WHO changed the definition of vaccines to include gene therapy. The injections should have stopped, but we have a Chief Safety Officer [Dr Alison Cave, MHRA] who is denying or ignoring the data.
[MHRA CEO] June Raine says the vaccines are “very safe”, yet there is no data for pregnant women. You should not experiment on pregnant women and young children. The MHRA is stonewalling on the data.
And there are huge conflicts on interest on the MHRA Board. This organisation is not acting in the public’s best interest, not conducting safety analysis, yet saying it is “safe”.
Brian Gerrish remarks that sodium valproate damaged some 37,000. The MHRA is monitoring, but he doesn’t see any outcome. Is this incompetence or deliberate avoidance of the data?
The underlying motives
Dr Lawrie then asks the big question:
So we have the why. Why would the government allow vaccines and interventions, if harmful? Why would they not investigate what is already available?
[Against this background,] our role is to communicate with the public regarding what is safe, and encourage them not to take any more, and to take control of their own health.
[But] the power of those who are corrupt is so overwhelming that people take another injection rather than consider they are harmful. It’s a very fearful position we are in.
It is also difficult for me to ask why this is happening, and for people to cope with the answer.
But it is good to ask people to question things as a start, to raise their levels of understanding.
Millions of people have had a vaccination, and only now are they asking questions about vaccine safety. If we go too far, too fast, we can scare people who have had maybe three vaccines.
We should all take these people into account and bring them along without scaring them, or taking them into a dark mental approach.
Hundred-day global law
Brian Gerrish states that we have a world approach unfolding from Covid-19 for a lockdown-plus-vaccine policy. The WHO is now drafting a revised constitution by treaty, with the simple effect that the WHO can tell every country’s executive agencies what they should be doing. They will supplant national law.
Dr Lawrie replies:
The main article in the Treaty is [the revised wording of the WHO Constitution’s] Article 21—the provision for the WHO to be responsible for lockdown and quarantine and to call a pandemic. They could demand measures with lockdowns and quarantines to “prevent a pandemic”. They get to say who will develop pharmaceuticals—and within a 100-day timescale.
But how is this very short timescale possible? And the WHO says how something is mandated, controlled and promoted.
Many people in Western democracies think that an external body to impose a treaty could never happen, but they are wanting this to be a legally-binding treaty and to be consequences for countries that violate the treaty. All countries are to be bound to the treaty in event of another pandemic.
But I don’t think the WHO has done a good job in this pandemic, and they need to be held accountable. But it only takes two-thirds of 194 countries signing up to mean that every country would be bound by it. Two-thirds is the threshold for the WHO treaty being agreed.
Brian Gerrish underlines that this would give a national government an easy opt-out from constitutionality and national law, as ministers could simply plead to parliaments and courts, “We have to do this because the WHO says we must.”
Dr Lawrie responds that we have already seen this pattern where the MHRA defers to, and has deferred to, the WHO:
What happens when it is official […] nobody looks at evidence and just says, “The WHO says so.” We stand to lose our freedom and health if we are bound by the decision.
We need to remind people that we are sovereign and that we have free will and choice, and we do not have to be bound by the decisions of corrupt individuals.
Debi, you picked up that their actions would be based on cases, not deaths. I think in 2009 with swine flu, they decided to include the definition with infections, so they can declare a pandemic, epidemic, in countries at drop of a hat and to mandate vaccines.
Debi Evans replies that while many people are focusing on injections, other urgent concerns are monoclonal antibodies and antivirals:
We are going from ten-year trials to 100 days. So this gives the WHO tremendous power, and yet politicians believe the WHO is just giving out ‘advice’. MPs are just not fully aware.
Dr Lawrie emphasises that although it is hard work getting through to our politicians, people have been reaching out to them. Nevertheless, their responses are that there is “insufficient evidence” for ivermectin and that “vaccines are safe”. There is an unwillingness to take people’s concerns seriously:
Politicians are not doing their jobs. I don’t know how to wake them up. They should be serving us, and they should hold government to account. We have short memories that our government has not always done its best for us.
There is a big disconnect between science and medicine; [between] law and the legal system and the political system. And if there is any corruption in [any] one of these, the message is not going to get through.
I spoke to a judge, but they felt they did not have the medical expertise to state [reservations] on the case. They deferred to the corrupt prevailing medical and regulatory body opinions.
These systems do not work in harmony for the public. We need to rethink these public-private partnerships—the root cause of corruption in academia and the regulatory bodies.
Brian Gerrish remarks that in his early days with UK Column, he was curious about what the public-private partnerships were doing. He found that whereas the idea was sold as getting the public and private sectors to come together, the reality was that these partnerships lock them together.
The problem with this is that if someone anywhere in such a partnership is involved in dirty work, then the public parts of the partnership are tarred with it and will be shy of taking action—because they are part of it.
I could believe the partnership idea is to draw people in and to deliberately control them.
Dr Lawrie adds:
Private partners and industry have further infiltrated agencies and governments through foundations and charities. [Bill] Gates is hugely influential in government and the WHO.
But if you look at the Gates foundation, it makes huge amounts of money from vaccines. So you have an individual who stands to gain from the policies of the WHO and government.
He is not a philanthropist […] he promotes unsafe vaccines.
Brian Gerrish returns to the subject of helping people to respond to their disquiet:
We can do work here by asking questions again.
We can encourage people to ask the questions themselves.
The NHS has gone
Debi Evans comments on the NHS:
The Long-Term Plan for the NHS is not working it has broken the NHS. That the NHS [should be known as] a safe place, reassuring you, making you feel better and [that it] is trusted, is gone.
The NHS Confederation has said that everything we are used to has gone.
[We are heading to a] medicine regulator with no safety, [to] genomic and precision medicines, virtual wards and different contracts for nurses and doctors.
Everything that we know has gone. GPs have been replaced with community pharmacists.
We will be monitored, surveilled and watched remotely. We are looking at a 1984 fusion of health and security. Biometric data for all of us. It's almost like medications will cause more problems.
Gates is entrenched in the NHS with GRAIL, testing healthy people for cancer.
Dr Lawrie emphasises the need to understand what is happening and encourages people to go to the World Council for Health website. She stresses that it is important that the public support it and prioritise it.
Brian Gerrish remarks that all the changes that Debi Evans has mentioned have come through under cover of the “pandemic”. If the WHO is successful with the treaty for its new constitution, we are going to be in a perilous position.
Keeping ourselves healthy
Dr Lawrie replies that the WHO consultation period of 16–17 June 2022 is a sham to give the appearance of public participation, and that mass public engagement is needed:
I would like to see people forming community health hubs. [I’m] looking for ex-NHS people to help communities build health and reliance, working with non-statutory bodies and healers. They have been doing good work, and we need to to recognise them and their good work and use them.
I'll add there was a meeting held in 2015, after Ebola: a WHO meeting concerning global norms and data during pandemics. The WHO was developing Global Norms for Data and Results Sharing during Public Health Emergencies.
They state that data should be shared as soon as possible. Research data should be shared early, journals should not hinder data in a public health emergency. But interesting to see how this was applied in a pandemic where we have seen new drugs rushed through, but the opposite with regard to old medicines. And demands for more and more evidence of safety for existing medicines. World data is there and doctors are trying to speak out, but are ignored.
And representatives such as Bill Gates, the Wellcome Trust, GSK, and the US Department of Defense participated in the meeting: a fascinating mix of public, private, government and charitable trusts, et cetera, and world journals who have not published the facts about available medical interventions.
I used this document in my presentations to agencies to accept the evidence coming forward. I sent a short video on my work to the Prime Minister and started using this WHO document to highlight the need for authorities to look at the [total] evidence [available for medical interventions]. Somewhere in the middle of last year, 2021, the document was taken down, and it is now not available.
So it seems the meeting was used to roll out new interventions and to [stop or stall reviews of] established medicines.
When they saw I was using it to support the evidence on ivermectin, they pulled it down.
The interview ends with this astonishing revelation, which leaves many important questions to be asked about the real agenda of the World Health Organisation—and its partner governments, agencies, trusts and charities—as to whether they really are protecting the health of the world population.
We thank Dr Tess Lawrie for her excellent interview and we encourage readers and viewers to search out her websites and her ideas for focusing on solutions and positive things to bring people together, rather than succumbing to fear. Her websites can be accessed here:
The Better Way Conference was due to be held on 20–22 May 2022 but has just had to be postponed, due to a venue cancellation.