Last year I enthusiastically set up a FaceBook group called “We Design our Future – An Eco-weary Sanctuary and Systems Change Incubator’. It came after I had read extensively about the IPBES project – Natures Future Framework and created a page called “The Value of Nature =Our Future”. Within their scenarios are models of communities that embrace technology to work with and mimick nature (mimicry), condensed human habitats with productive land surrounding the dense housing and urban plots where habitat and food production co-exists. My aim was to get people talking about what would fit our local environment, and be best for not only humanity, but the rest of Nature.

I briefly presented the idea at the AAEE conference held in Mandurah, however I felt that my efforts to ‘change the world’ were more possible through inner presence and connection with Nature in a more spiritual sense. I was also aware of the increasing eco-despair and climate grief. Witnessing destruction of our beautiful endemic jarrah and karri forests I felt the despair first hand. I also experienced active hope and a connectedness with a small group who gathered for a weekend of “The Work that Reconnects” (Joanna Macy). Moving from the mind to the body and the emotions was cathartic.

To connect with the energy and vibration of spirit, which to me is a feeling of love, gratitude and compassion radiating out from my heart, is necessary to be the change. Many schools of thought and immersions guided my journey.

Engaging with the Presencing Institutes U.Lab 1X and 2 X  where I met hundreds of change makers from around the world who were following principles of open mind, open heart and open will (love and acceptance) provided guidance, yet I felt alone in the local setting. I struggled to find people to work in collaboration with whilst seeing teams in other countries using generative discussions to move forward.

I found clarity and peace from focussing on my breath using Soma breathwork, Qi Gong and being in nature. Whilst connecting with the ocean whilst standing on my stand-up-paddle board I practiced Tonglen,  breathing in the hate vibrating around Earth and breathing out love.

As well as an open heart I had, and still have, an open mind. I read and listened to observations of credible people who were being censored on social media platforms like FaceBook (Meta), Twitter and You-Tube. There are many videos showing this bizarre change away from critical thought and testing of scientific hypothesis. It is not my intent to discuss this here, (I hope pro-vax advocates can stick with me) however there is a wide range of information on the Frontline Covid Care web site. Even studies that showed how suffering could be reduced in people contracting Covid, or prevent disease were silenced, doctors sacked, and licenses removed. Since childhood I have had a tendency to stand up for people being wrongly accused. This discrimination led me to  spend hours looking into why this was happening. You could say I followed the rabbit down the hole.

Down the Rabbit Hole

I wondered why people who were, in other situations, wary of government promises and tactics to hide the truth (deforestation of our native forests, mining, fracking for gas etc) repeating what I saw as propaganda about the disease, especially the new experimental drug that they called a vaccine. The definition was changed so that they could call it one. Vaccines now don’t have to give you immunity against the disease, they only need to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases to produce protection. Even USA’s CDC stated they didn’t know whether the new vaccines would keep people from spreading the disease, nor how long the protection would last. Plus, “CDC says, “the mRNA strand never enters the cell’s nucleus or affects the vaccine recipient’s genetic material.” Politicians, influencers, media, and public health workers said it was safe and effective yet they knew virtually nothing about its side effects. The trials were so short and the outcomes not transparent to the public.

One huge red flag was when they were saying it was safe in pregnancy and breast feeding. As a child health nurse, I was taught that no drug is safe until proven so after long trials. My role as Healthy for Life Coordinator in an Aboriginal community focused on counselling women about healthy pregnancy – avoiding drinking alcohol, smoking and poor nutrition whilst pregnant. The Pfizer application for Emergency Approval of their vaccine, Comirnaty, provided studies on rats but there were no studies on women. To mandate that pregnant women had to be ‘vaccinated’ to keep their job, which would also mean maternity leave post birth, was to me a gross act of medical negligence. Coercion negates informed consent.

However, any medical person who questioned this, or tried to get an exemption for people for whom the risk was greater than the disease, was shut down with the threat of seizure of records and loss of license to practice. Meanwhile, the Pfizer documents supplied to the TGA revealed that concentrations of the vax did get to the ovaries of rats, albeit given a higher dose than given to humans, within 48 hours. See Table.

My mind screamed “no, this is wrong”. So, I delved deeper. Once I jumped down the rabbit hole a wonderland, nothing like what Alice experienced opened before me. It was a wonder land of shock and bewilderment.

I watched Senate inquiries and testimonies from highly credentialled medical professionals, virologists, scientists and statisticians. To see a father weep because his son who volunteered to be in the clinical trial had died, and a young girl, Madie, (below) paralysed moved me. Madie’s adverse reaction was recorded as ‘gastric problem’. Gastric paralysis was just the start. The longer Senate Hearing is here.

I could be silent no more.

Yet when I tried to share many articles and videos FB slapped a warning about Covid information – and directed me to the government site. For some of the content FB told me it was against community guidelines and my post would not be shown to others and if I kept sharing, I would be banned. Community groups like Mandurah Q & A banned me for 30 days for posting a link to information about susceptibility to infections post vax. If we apply the Scientific Method, we would investigate not censor. To ‘fight’ Covid the holy grail was vaccination, and any other way was classed misinformation. When did this become acceptable in science?

If I made comments under posts that supported freedom rallies I was classed as colluding with right wing extremists. I acknowledge that many people who are against being mandated to have an experimental drug injected into them have political, religious and environmentally different views than mine. But it does not mean they are leading this attempt to raise awareness that this pandemic is not only about a virus that can be lethal for some.

We need to be aware how much of it is about corporate power, and the view of people who own 99% of the world’s wealth. We need to be aware of their intentions to create the future they want. We need to look deeply, beyond the home page of organisations like the World Economic Forum (the Great Reset) and the World Health Organisation (global health policies). For a light hearted Russell Brand presentation watch his video from a year ago ‘You will own nothing, and you will be happy’. It has quotes from Naomi Klein. Screenshots below.

Also looking at the WEF website and videoed conferences is a great place to start. There are many clips on Klaus Schwab (the highlighted one sounding benevolent but others , like this one on the fourth Industrial Revolution, a bit more revealing. Others are within event recordings) You can get a picture of what his view of what the world should be. It is high tech, AI and surveillance and global control. A satirical presentation, that may not be to your taste, but does show alarming clips of Klaus and his advisors is in his You tube video ‘Awaken with JP‘ .

Are we OK with greater surveillance, digital ID and global vaccine passports all managed from a central global NGO or corporation?

Are we OK with silencing doctors and other medical practitioners because they don’t want to go against the Hippocratic Oath and do no harm?

Are we OK with impeding what could be the next great step in advancement of human consciousness as we understand human neuro-psycho-immunolgy and biology, quantum science applications to health, the biofield and the influence of the terrain on our health?

Have we fully explored the placebo effect, and how we can we heal ourselves?

I see coercion, mandating the taking of drugs, that are patented to produce billions of dollars for the producers and stockholders a violation of the right to continue my journey of consciousness raising. It is an act of disempowerment to say the only way my body can combat a virus is to be injected with genetic code. Does that warrant people labelling me selfish? If we are all connected, inter-beings, then doesn’t my wish for a rise in consciousness affect us all? The advertising (propaganda) to entice people to ‘do the right thing’, ‘get vaccinated to protect the vulnerable’ has no scientific grounding. It has been proven false that the vax can stop transmission.  I don’t need to do it to protect the vulnerable. There are much more valuable things we as a community can do.

I see our current trajectory as the wrong path for humanity. There is a place for technology – maybe 3 D printed hearts instead of heart transplants will be the next surgical advancement but those who chose to meditate and move energy, keep fit and eat healthy food should not be forced into the corporate-industrial-medical system of the Fourth Industrial revolution.

Where did I find the rat?

Over a year ago I was made aware of false accusations against Ivermectin, a proclaimed ‘wonder drug’ that has saved the suffering of many people in Africa (specifically Onchocerciasis or River blindness and Lymphatic filariasis) and countries with high levels of parasites, infected scabies etc including remote Aboriginal Australia where I have prescribed and given the drug to children.

Most of the mild side effects are due to the death of the parasites as depicted in the CARPA Medicine book from which we prescribed.

One woman’s story as to how this was ridiculed as a prevention and early treatment for Covid, and then outlawed, highlights how thousands of people have lost their lives, and are suffering with long covid because of this deliberate misrepresentation of rigorous scientific study. Tess Lawrie, MD PhD, describes her heart ache that came after Dr Andrew Hill, consultant to WHO, published the Meta-analysis, the background of which she and many medical researchers and practitioners had been working on. After a year of trying to be heard Tess has produced a video – ‘Letter to Andrew Hill’.

Quote “On Jan. 6 of 2021, Hill testified enthusiastically before the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidlelines Panel in support of ivermectin’s use. Within a month, however, Hill found himself in what he describes as a “tricky situation.” Under pressure from his funding sponsors, Hill then published an unfavorable study. Ironically, he used the same sources as in the original study. Only the conclusions had changed.

Shortly before he published, Dr. Tess Lawrie, Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, and one of the world’s leading medical research analysts, contacted Hill via Zoom and recorded the call (transcript in the World Tribune). Lawrie had learned of his new position and reached out to try to rectify the situation… Four days before publication, Hill’s sponsor Unitaid gave the University of Liverpool, Hill’s employer $40 million. Unitaid, it turns out, was also an author of the conclusions of Hill’s study.” World Tribune.

Surely this should be investigated. Why are regulatory bodies refusing to comment? Is it money, the funding of institutions and research or is it worse? I wonder if there is threat of death for non-compliance or if people have been put in a trance state. Watch Andrew Hill’s body language and consider the consequences if he had changed the concluding paragraph to align with his genuine analysis, not what he wrote and published in his meta-analysis.

For more background as to who Tess Lawrie is and the work she has done previously for WHO please watch this segment of the Highwire. It is like watching a ‘Who done-it’ movie. It is an hour long but the Letter to Andrew Hill is only 18 minutes.

Alternatively, for a quick read, more conflict of interest is explained in the World Tribune article, “Researcher Andrew Hill’s conflict: A $40 million Gates Foundation grant vs a half a million lives”.

In the Zoom call with Tess, and in his conclusion, Andrew Hill says he is waiting for more evidence. In January 2021, he thought it would take 6 weeks. There has been no retraction and no further comment. Why?

Meanwhile many countries have continued to use the medication for prophylactic and treatment of this and other diseases. As Tess Lawrie mentions, a large, randomised trial is fraught with difficulties in an emergency situation. If a new drug, that required a name change to be called a vaccine can be approved with scant clinical trial data, none of which Pfizer wanted to reveal to the public, can be allowed, surely a drug with decades of safety use data could be used.

However large studies have been undertaken. This recently released study is the world’s largest study of Ivermectin for Covid-19. Conducted in a southern city in Brazil that has 100% digitalised medical records of it citizens, it looked at Ivermectin as a preventive measure only. It was not randomised but self-selected for use of Ivermectin which resulted in more people with comorbidities requesting to be in the Ivermectin arm.  For those who want to delve really deeply, the platform Cureus allows people (preferably medical/research competent) to comment freely. In the comments you can read of how politics affected the dropout rate of participants, different ways of measuring mortality rate, consider what constitutes conflicting interest and how our preconceived ideas affect how we read and react to this study. This is what helps the advancement of medicine. It is the Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method

As described here on thoughtco.com but similar elsewhere.

“The scientific method is a series of steps followed by scientific investigators to answer specific questions about the natural world. It involves making observations, formulating a hypothesis, and conducting scientific experiments. Scientific inquiry starts with an observation followed by the formulation of a question about what has been observed. The steps of the scientific method are as follows:

• Observation
• Question
• Hypothesis
• Experiment
• Results
• Conclusion”

We have been told to ‘follow the science’ yet the scientific method has not been followed. There are so many incongruences within the  ‘Pubic Health Information’ which we have been instructed to follow. Some guidelines have been enforced as law under the Emergency Act which was initially for 6 weeks to flatten the curve.

Why do they keep extending it?

Where is the safety-risk analysis for their ‘laws’ on masks and vaccination especially for children who we were told are very rarely seriously affected by the virus and should not wear masks.

The list of incongruences would take hours of research to investigate but focussing on number 3 below, here is one that has been identified from the information provided by Pfizer to the Australian TGA and Japanese regulatory bodies when seeking ‘Emergency Approval’?

1. mRNA technology is new, but not unknown. It has been studied for decades.
2. mRNA vaccines do not contain live virus and carry no risk of causing disease in the vaccinated person.
3. mRNA from the vaccine never enters the nucleus of the cell and does not affect or interact with a person’s DNA.

A paper  “SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro”published in the journal Viruses in October 2021 showed in vitro possibilities of the spike from the vax drug getting into and damaging the DNA in the nucleus of cells.

Dr Reszek who uses You Tube to explain complicated studies to the public explained it clearly in his video, ‘Spike Protein inside nucleus enhancing DNA damage? -COVID-19 mRNA vaccines update 18.’ On the 24/2/22 he released another video that links Pfizer’s own research with the probability that the lipid nano-particle which carries the mRNA code into the cell can reach the nucleus. “Merogenics on spike and vax getting into the cell

He writes:- “Scientific evidence from Pfizer, presented to the Australian government [pre-approval], confirming the possible entry of the spike protein into the cell nuclei. We analysed the remainder of the document information capturing the cell studies and animal studies prior to vaccines being approved and discuss the limitations the Australian authorities were pointing towards.”

You can locate the .pdf on the TGA site here.

None of this is ‘fake news’ or misinformation. It is the process of science, which includes ethics and transparency which seems to be lacking in ‘the science’ we are being told to follow. It is a familiar pattern – just think of the Tobacco industry, asbestos mining and chemical producers like Monsanto. The science they produced on their deadly products was manipulated and anything adverse was hidden. It took years to uncover.

I hope the cover-ups and acts that others more informed than I are calling fraud and crimes against humanity do not take as long.

Humanity hangs in the balance.

I followed a rabbit and found lots of rats, a huge corporate nest. My concern is that they will not be easily trapped. The authoritarian rule will intensify. The ramifications for losing our right to protest, to free speech, to vote and elect leaders, and ultimately for the trees, the wildlife, and all the elements of the planet, which are reliant on our voice, are frightening.

Photo – Perup Forest post ‘controlled burn’ by the Dept Biodiversity Conservation and attractions. The Department relies on outdated science to justify its over-zealous burning of forest and bush. Is the hectare quota system driven by money for a few?