General Assembly Meeting | April 4, 2022

Rewatch the full April 4, 2022, World Council for Health General Assembly Meeting with guest speakers Dr. Lucy Kerr and Dr. Flavio Cadegiani joining us from Brazil to talk about the largest Ivermectin trial in the world, Kim Knight joining us from New Zealand to discuss what a 23rd-century healthcare system can look like and Riekie Erasmus joining from South Africa to introduce the Covid Care Alliance.

Findings From the Largest Ivermectin Trial in The World with Dr Lucy Kerr and Dr Flavio Cadegiani

Dr. Lucy Kerr is the founder of Doctors for Life Brazil and pre-pandemic, her area of expertise was diagnostic ultrasonography. She was tasked by the mayor to create a protocol for the city of Itajai, to help them treat the Covid-19 virus and this led her to ivermectin and conduct a world-class study on the subject.

Dr Flavio Cadegiani is an Endocrinologist & Visiting Professor, Faculty of Floriano (FAESF), Brazil. He is also Founder, President & Medical Director at the Corpometria Institute, Brazil. He is an Ad hoc consultant for the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa) and a Consultant for Nat’l. Commission for Incorporation of New Technologies, Devices and Drugs, Brazilian Health System (SUS)

Riekie Erasmus: About Covid Care Alliance

Riekie founded the Covid Care Alliance – South Africa and Riekie Erasmus Attorneys. Riekie Erasmus has been in the legal field since 1980, as a prosecutor, magistrate, and state advocate. She started practicing independently as an attorney in 1995 and has the right of appearance in the Supreme Court of South Africa. Riekie has a keen interest in all family matters, personal injury claims, and all litigation.

10 Fundamental Principles of a New Healthcare System Created By and For the People with Kim Knight

Kim Knight has immersed herself in studying and training in a multitude of complementary therapies, both for her own healing and to help clients recover from chronic illnesses often deemed incurable without drugs. This training and clinical experience have given her a unique insight into the possibilities of a radically different health care systems, which can combine the best of conventional medicine with many newly emerging cutting edge modalities of the future, where the client has the opportunity to play the lead role in their own healthcare.

This is an edited segment from the weekly live General Assembly meeting on April 4, 2022.

Transcript

[00:00:00] [00:00:58] Dr. Mark Trozzi: All right, everyone. So welcome. I guess we’re ready to start World Council for Health meeting for April the fourth. And we’ve got a pretty full agenda. So for starters, we’ll go through some of our welcomes and just look at some of our, uh, routine announcements to get the meeting started. [00:01:14] So I’m a little disclaimer that this is an open forum and we really want to consider things. Uh, this is not a place to box your minds in. And so that doesn’t mean that what the guest speakers say is therefore the unanimous opinion or the opinion, the World Council for Health. [00:01:29] This is a forum to consider things. So the opinions are not necessarily all of our opinion, but we really respect each other’s opinions and we’re grateful to share them. [00:01:39] Meetings live and not rehearsed. So therefore errors will happen. Sometimes people fall off their chairs but otherwise it should go smooth. [00:01:45] So if you could, there’s a good group of us, please keep yourself on mute during the meeting. Please adhere to our code of conduct, which is really about respect and good manners and a free open discussion. For questions, if the partners, if you could put your question with the letter Q in front of it, and then the question can be directed to the speaker. [00:02:04] Be careful. We do, um, attract negative attention from people that like to lie and deceive the world. And so, please do not let anyone take remote control of your screen if you’re speaking, you should not be getting asked for anyone to do anything that might risk your security during this meeting. [00:02:20] And what is our mission? Well, we’re a nonprofit and, that means that we’re both funded and informed by the people. And we’re a global coalition. We involve more than 50 countries, more than 150 organizations and we just want to openly broaden public health knowledge and making sense of things through sharing both science and wisdom. [00:02:41] We are completely dedicated to human rights and to free will including bodily autonomy. And we want to empower people to have truthful information and the resources they need to take the best care of their health based on their choices. [00:02:54] And there is our beautiful model. There has got to be a better way than we’ve been dealt and we are committed to creating it together. And with that, we will come back the wonderful Maria Hubmer-Mogg. [00:03:04] So these are things we value and I’ll run through each of them; freedom and we value community and connection. We value integrity. We are a transparent organization and we believe in empowerment; empowerment of individuals and sovereign states. [00:03:22] And that’s a bit about our values. As you can see, we have more beautiful coalition partners than I can say all of our names at once, but it’s just so wonderful seeing all these people coming together from around the world and be in the World Council for Health. And this is a big announcement on May 20th to 22nd – set that date aside – we have the Better Way Conference, which can be both physically and virtually attended. It’ll be in the beautiful town of Bath, UK. We’ll be sharing more details and also have some early bird tickets. And we appreciate all kinds of support, including a lot of members who are participating in creating the agenda. [00:03:57] Oh, this is excellent. Our Mind Health Committee, which meets in the connection room every Wednesday, 6th of April. In this meeting, we’ll be talking about wireless technology and how to keep our environment healthy for the family. We were being bombarded with a radical experiment, must be careful. And that’s going to be hosted by David Charalambous who has shared great insights on the human mind and getting through this, with guests, Magda Havas, who’s an expert on wireless frequencies, EMF, and she’s a scientist, and Oliver Perceval, who’s the manager of RFINFO.co.uk. [00:04:31] There’ll be a meditation April 8th, which is Friday, and that’ll be led by Robito Chatwin of Covid Positive News and both events of course, are hosted in the World Council for Health discussion channel on Telegram, I believe. [00:04:46] Maria, are you ready to take over? [00:04:48] Good evening, everybody from Austria. As you know, I am a mother of a little boy and since my husband is on night shift I probably have to leave the meeting another time tonight, but I’m really looking forward to tonight’s meeting our guest speakers, as you can see. [00:05:06] We will start with Dr. Lucy Kerr from Brazil. Lucy is a phenomenal doctor and she did so much good work, in this whole crisis. Lucy is from Brazil. She is the founder of Doctors for Life Brazil and pre-pandemic, her area of expertise was diagnostic ultrasonography. Since COVID, she was tasked by the mayor to create a protocol for the city of Itajai, I hope I pronounce that correctly to help them treat the COVID-19 virus and this led her to ivermectin and conducting the fantastic trial she’s here to discuss with us tonight. [00:05:47] Lucy has probably issues with her internet connection from Brazil, so we, prerecorded her presentations. So this very important presentation won’t be interrupted. But Lucy is with us here in this meeting, and she’s happy to answer your questions after the presentation. [00:06:06] Thank you so much, Lucy for joining and thank you so much for your really important work and I think everybody from the World Council for Health knows her and knows that this was the largest ivermectin study with over 200,000 participants. So looking forward to the presentation. Thank you. [00:06:24] Dr. Lucy Kerr: First of all, I would like to thank for the invitation and the opportunity of presenting this work done in Itajai in Santa Catarina, in the south of Brazil, with Ivermectin against COVID-19 as profilaxy. And we have no conflicts of interest. [00:06:43] This study has been published in Cureus on 15, January 2022. And the goals of this presentation is to show why Itajai is a very special study, why we chose Ivermectin for Itajai’s study, data of profilaxy with Ivermectin in Itajai against COVID-19 pandemic and results and conclusions. And why does the study represent a very strong pressure over World Health Organization, and other agencies to approve ivermectin into COVID-19. Why Itajai study is special? It’s because it’s the world’s largest study about the ivermectin, the COVID-19 and it’s the second largest worldwide studying COVID-19. [00:07:37] The first is a study in Israel with vaccines of COVID-19 the Pfizer. And because it’s a prospective observation that we studied that can be analyzed and comparable with a randomized control trial, this means it is almost a double-blind. And, it’s supported by SUS, it’s a unified health system in Brazil and the city hall will provide the Ivermectin. [00:08:06] And it is important to understand that SUS is the largest universal health program in the world. Why? Because it’s for all Brazilian population, doesn’t matter if you are rich or poor, you have the right to be in the program, including non-Brazilian that are in that moment in Brazil. This means that we do not need to ask for extra money to carry out this work. [00:08:34] And we use exactly the money that has been already established for health for that population and don’t need the extra money. So was very economic, despite being a very large program. Why Itajai was chosen? We didn’t choose Itajai. The mayor of Itajai chose me because Itajai was the first city to be infected with COVID-19 in the state of Santa Catarina by COVID-19 because its port of entry and exit for goods and sailors, so there is a lot of opportunities of infections. [00:09:15] And Itajai became the center of Santa Catarina’s largest COVID-19 outbreak. At that moment, I was the only face of Ivermectin in Brazil. And, uh, I told you to the mayor, the were successful campaign then in Trinidad, Bolivia with Ivermectin for the whole population of that city and the mayor approved the Itajai campaign. [00:09:44] Itajia study is the largest of all studies conducted with Ivermectin against COVID-19 that showed the numbers, the total population of Itajai is 200,517. Itajai population above 18 years old, who participate in the study and because could give the authorization for is 158,934. The population that use it Ivermectine years, 121,907, and the population that did not use ivermectin is 37,027. And the COVID-19 infection that use the ivermectin is 4,311. And those who did not use Ivermectine, but have infection was 3,034. And the total tested population was 7,345. And why we choose Ivermectin? I could say it’s the best anti-viral drug that has been proven against 22 viruses and acts in all critical phases of COVID-19. [00:10:56] But, at that time (May 2020) I and many other people did not know anything about this. And the only thing I knew for sure is Dr. Caly’s in vitro study Australia national university, with monkey cells infected by COVID-19. And my personal risk experience with Ivermectin in the COVID-19 was very good and Trinidad campaign. [00:11:23] Let’s, present the preliminary data of Itajai study. It was an initiative of the mayor Volenei Morastoni began prophylactic and voluntary administration of Ivermectin after medical consultation and weighing and the patient received one tablet of 6mg of Ivermectin for every 30Kg weight for 2 consecutive days, every 15 days during 241 days, that was, they studied them. And this means that our file was updated for registration medical data diseases and comorbidities. And we also know who took Ivermectin and who does not, how many cycles and evolution. And that we also know what other medications the patients are taking that could interfere with the results of ivermectin. [00:12:20] And the laboratory test results comes from those were hospitalized. And we collected data from medical records and SARS-Cov-2 testing of three locations; the temporary outpatient clinic in the Itajai convention center, SUS health posts of Itajai and the hospital. We have a higher accuracy in data collection and exclusions. [00:12:48] And the majority of the population is from German descent. And it is probably the only Brazilian city that has 100% digitized medical records. So this was the main reason that allowed us to study 100% of the population. What we have done when the patient come in is just to update the records during the consultation and all patients included had complete data in the medical records. There was no missing information. This was very impressive. All clinical variables present besides the Ivermectine effect was considered; the variables that affect mortality. Those which influenced the patient’s cure; analyze that impact of the treatment with Ivermectin; and for all this reason, this is such a strong, robust, accurate, and very high quality study. [00:13:56] And the 10 variables we considered for a statistical propose was all these we show in this light. And there are four reasons why our statistics are so high quality. First of all, we do the adjustment by Poisson Method. And after we do the balance by Propensity Score Match. It is association between Poisson which propensity score matching is considered a gold standard for statistical purposes in this moment, and is able to turn a retrospective study equivalent to prospective randomized, almost a double blind clinical trial and requires that the number of participants is, should be large. [00:14:45] And ours is huge. So no problem at all. And we use the same programs and techniques that are used by FDA, Cochrane and World Health Organization. [00:15:00] Let’s see who took Ivermectine. 76.7% of those who participate, they are older. We have a 50% of our patients above a 50 years old, 30% fewer patients less than 30 years old, and has much more co-morbidities who did not take Ivermectine 23.3% and 7% or more diabetes, 6%, or I hypertension two times more kind of vascular disease, and 2.5 more asthma. [00:15:31] The comparison between who used the Ivermectin, who did not use Ivermectin from the full population above 18 years old. And the, we had 57% decreasing infection rate by COVID-19 who took Ivermectin. And after balancing and matching to groups, we have 3034 subjects, and we have a decreasing 56% hospitalization rate. [00:16:03] And the, we have a degrees of 68% of COVID-19 mortality rate. And when we saw the risk of dying from COVID-19, those who use ivermectin is five in 10,000, who did not use Ivermectin is 21 in 10,000 or 76% decrease of dying from COVID 19. Is incredible. Let’s compare data proving Ivermectin in Itajai, before and after the program. Before we have much less cases than after, because we have a longer period of observation and we have decreasing their hospitalization even so that has decreased to 73% by COVID-19. And did that also had decreased and the mortality rate was 2.4% before the program and only 1.4% after the program. So we have a decrease of 69% mortality rate for Covid-19. They say that Ivermectin is dangerous, but, our group who took Ivermectin has much more elderly and patients with more comorbidities and mortality, so should it be higher in this group that took Ivermectin. But let’s see the real results let’s compare Ivermectin versus age. [00:17:38] Between 30 and 50 years old, we have a decrease in the mortality rate of 85% by COVID-19, or this means that we save at five, every 1000 people. [00:17:51] Above 50 years old, we have a decrease in 59% mortality rate by COVID-19? And we are able to save you 66, every 1000, means that we have saved and much more because this group are exactly those who are higher risk. Ivermectin versus diabetes and hypertension. Diabetes, we have a decrease of 81% mortality by COVID-19 and we save 211 people for every 1000. The hypertension group, we have a decrease of 67% of mortality, and we saved 117 people every 1000. [00:18:36] Let’s see now the comparison between the citys that improved the most response to COVID-19 infection from July to November, 2020. And Itajai is the champion because it has increased the only plus 23% mortality for 100,000 applicants. [00:18:56] And the Santa Catalina average was 201% more mortality. And the champion was the city of Lages with 1014% increasing the mortality rate. [00:19:17] It’s important to note that we have many studies done with Ivermectin, but these is the first that demonstrated greater protection due to ivermectin for the elder and patients with comorbidities – exactly the high risk group. All the other therapies for COVID-19 do not favour this group. Large study and a very long period of observation has allowed to show this effect that the other papers do not present. Conclusion; prophylactic use of ivermectin, reduce COVID-19 infection, COVID-19 hospitalization, COVID-19 mortality, and the chance of dying from COVID-19 during a large population study. The controlled statistical analysis of Poisson for all relevant confounding variables and the use of propensity score matching allowed us to have a level of a randomized clinical trial evidence. Then impact was greater in the elderly and or with comorbidities. A single drug that protect high risk population. [00:20:37] What I would say is not in the papers, my private opinion; not administering Ivermectin [for] COVID-19 is genocide. And this study shows what could have been done and has not, due science denial. Thank you. [00:20:57] Mark Trozzi MD: Thank you very much, Dr. Kerr. Well, this is a very, very profound science, you know, I think in my own country, 70% of all the people that died from COVID, didn’t have to. I think of all the people that through this element of the racketeering have been pushed into injections that are causing just record harms. [00:21:19] So I can’t thank you enough. And your team for such a massive study. This absolutely drives the nails into the coffin of the racketeering argument, that there isn’t a treatment, so you need to stay in a pandemic. And so you need to take these injections. God bless you and your team. Lucy, thank you so much. [00:21:37] People need to understand how profound this is and, and we need to, to share this far and wide. There’s no debate left. Ivermectin works profoundly. [00:21:45] Dr. Flavio A. Cadegiani: Okay. Thank you very much. So first of all we see in inequities and lack of proportionality when the study comes with positive results and with negative results from the editors, from the media, from this data scientists – from everyone. When it comes out with positive results for a repurposed drug, everyone requires the data sets, everything turns out to be mandatory. Editor asks for tonnes of extra information and detailments, and when it comes to be negative or not effective for ivermectin, strangely the same editors do not require for any further information, they just publish rubbish papers. I’m telling that because I have, from my own experience, I will bring out the editorial gates in a couple of months, show me how New England Journal of Medicine and British Medical Journal were acting actively to suppress everything that is not from big pharma. [00:22:48] But anyway, let’s focus on this one. This one was astonishingly weird. First point; I found that one year ago I tried to participate in this trial as a site. I’ve never told this before here. I tried, I contacted, [inaudible], I contacted everyone, just know I contacted them. It was before the controversies regarding my position. Strangely, they did not accept at all. They just ignore it completely. So I found it strange because they had pre established sites. They didn’t want more. It’s not because they were full of sites. They were searching for sites and they didn’t want to share the protocols with the rest of us. [00:23:34] Second point, which is very strange. The national ethics committee in Brazil accepted the protocol after the study was initiated and they were changing the protocol and they were not communicating to the national ethics committee and very curiously, the president of the national ethics committee who’s got undeclared conflicts of interests with a certain big pharma industry. [00:24:04] Some of them accepted the data to the chronology, to be included as ‘the study will occur in 2022′. This point it’s very weird because he’s persecuting me personally and throwing my name and trying to destroy my reputation through the media, saying that everything I did was ethically illegal, which has nothing to do. [00:24:27] We are, we are winning from him in the justice for everything we are going against him. And the same person signed something very weird. The person signed that the Together trial was to be conducted starting on January, 2022. And that one, I always give the benefits of the doubt. So I think that what we need here are clarifications. [00:24:54] I’m not accusing anyone. I think they need clarify all this. It’s very unlikely because the interval you include for your trial to be conducted is the PI the principal investigator writes the dates of when it is beginning and when it ends. And it is written there starting January 2022 up to April 2022. [00:25:18] Was it possible that he got the wrong year? I’m not really sure. I’m not a hundred percent sure. I don’t think so because all the sites received approval in March 2022 and not all sites have been approved yet. Okay. So there are a lot of irregularities regarding the sites where they conducted the study. [00:25:41] But that’s only a part of it. This is going to be investigated within the country here nationally. And this is very important because the lack of control, they did not disclose who the [inaudible] was, whose protocol they were following, whether there was any audit in their numbers, who they recruited, how was the data? There are several points that are missing. [00:26:05] They didn’t even write a limitation section in the New England publication. And most strange thing, the strangest thing is that the quality of the paper itself is extremely low and it was published like that in New England Journal of Medicine, right after its editor-in-chief showed it to the world that Ivermectin doesn’t work. The conclusion by itself is completely imprecise because the conclude the correct conclusion would be: Ivermectin alone did not work sufficiently to achieve statistical significance with the number of subjects they enrolled. And there was a person from the group that said that if more subjects were enrolled, they would’ve achieved statistical significance, which I agree. But they terminated the study based on {inaudible} criteria. [00:27:00] So of course they didn’t want it to achieve statistical significance. Well, let me bring some more information regarding, I have brought through some emails, some of the information, there’s a huge list of inconsistencies to be brought here, but I need to bring some extra ones. I haven’t said before to anyone. [00:27:21] Everyone knows what Ivermectin tablet looks like in Brazil, because by that time there was only one manufacturer who by the way, did not provide the pills for them. They do not recognize anyone asking them to buy the pills, so that’s very weird. Second. They had to have it looking exactly the same as the placebo. [00:27:45] They did not mention, not only to you have the bottles looking like each other, you need to have the tablets looking like each other to be exactly the same looking. Otherwise, the blindness of the study is broken. So it’s not blinded anymore. So they must address this issue. If you got the protocol, they say- they measure two types of ivermectin, one six milligram tablet and the other one is 5 or 10 milligrams under the tongue. [00:28:14] So it’s weird because they’d say they, they mentioned both and they do not specify how the capsule, they must have specified what contains in the capsule, the tablets, what is in the placebo, everything and it’s not specified there. Well, what is my one hypothesis here is that people who participated in the study, they tended to be… I can tell you here in Brazil, it’s almost impossible to conduct a peer double blind without any medication for COVID-19. I tried in 2020, so I’m telling by my own experience, if you do not provide a basic standard of care, which would be Ivermectin, people do not get enrolled in the study. They do not enroll because usually at least here, people go to the studies to get treated. [00:29:06] What very likely happened here was that these patients wanted to be included in this study for a closer medical follow up and earlier detection of disease progression or complications. So that may be the point, okay. They accepted to be in the study because they wanted to be followed up more regularly. [00:29:30] Okay. So that is a huge question. And this needed to be highlighted. Another point is that the P.1-variant, it looks like very coincidentally, they enrolled ivermectin the ivermectin arm. Exactly. When the P.1, the Gamma variant was prevailing. The P.1 progressed through the inflammatory stage with three to four days of disease, unlike the others. Okay. Whereas the others you progress after seven to eight days. With the P.1 variants you progress to after three to four days. We have sufficient evidence to show that and they knew it. Okay. So that was on purpose because they knew everyone knew in Brazil that with three to four days, they were progressing to inflammatory stage. [00:30:25] So we have more than sufficient information to say that drug efficacy for COVID-19 is variant dependent, is stage dependent. And what we’re seeing here, we’re seeing the publication in New England where they do not specify the variant that was prevailing by the time and not discussing the potential limitations of being studied on these variants. [00:30:47] So this is extremely important for you to know because, the high sensitivity C-reactive protein should have been included as an exclusion criterion. So our own study, we included that. On other points, they started the recruitment in March, 2021. By that time, all doctors in Brazil were extremely familiar with the P.1, with the Gamma variants, and they knew that regular dose as a monotherapy of ivermectin would not work if not combined with other drugs or if not in higher doses. [00:31:26] In a matter of that, I have a study, a trial that I never started on high dose ivermectin, which was approved to be conducted in Brazil during the P.1 variant, in two, one milligram per kilogram, per day, for five days. That was approved to be conducted here because they knew that lower doses wouldn’t be sufficient to achieve efficiency, to, to show efficiency, uh, in these variants. [00:31:56] So it seems very convenient that this trial was conducted in the period that it was conducted, without any adaptation. They said they’d adapted from one day to three days because, but actually my feeling is that they adapted because one day you could easily exclude them as I studied that wouldn’t be considered for meta-analysis, for example. [00:32:20] So actually it surprises me that there were differences. So Ivermectin shows that it worked more than I would expect it to work for this variant. I’m telling you, I drew more than 3000 patients. This variant was something very different. Thankfully it did not spread because it was very aggressive. [00:32:39] So you need to understand that they knew they were testing a drug in a regular dose for a variant that would not respond. They knew that, okay. [00:32:49] So what they must provide the raw data, their recruitment, and a location order, per sites. And the description of the molecules and placebos, whether they were manufactured or compounded to look identical. Besides, all the other, we have tonnes of other inconsistencies in the numbers, in the results, between number of deaths and et cetera, et cetera. [00:33:16] The lack of side effects is something that calls our attention. So how come the placebo has more side effects than the ivermectin? And we know that in Brazil due to the high prevalence of (inaudible) and other (inaudible) parasites, we know that gives a lot of diarrhorea so it’s very all together. [00:33:36] And the lack of rigor from the (inaudible) altogether allows us hypothesized that there was a directed objective with this trial. So I think that they deserve to clarify, they need to have the chance to clarify all these points. But if they fail to provide the raw data, we’re at a time in the pandemics that I consider, I, we published, I published all the raw data for all the studies I conducted, a hundred percent, that the known publication of the raw data is a confession is a presumption, assumption of guilt. Because nowadays with all these uncertainties and controversies regarding vaccines and (inaudible) and et cetera, transparency is more required than ever. And the lack of full transparency means that something’s wrong. [00:34:31] We must start considering that the failure to provide raw data means that there’s something wrong behind it. This should start to be seriously considered as a presumption of guilt. Because there is no other reason. Okay. There is no other reason. I’m pretty sure this one will be very hard. I have a feeling that if we get the right pressure over this, I cannot myself write a letter to the editor, Eric J. Rubin, because I have a conflicts with him regarding some email exchanges we had, um, last year, uh, where he proves that he rejected my paper based, on undeclared interests. And with this, we’ll come out to public in a couple of months, but I need others to, to write a letter to the editor. Just to let you know what editors do. Okay. It happened to me last week. They will at first accept the letter, but then they will come out and refuse the letter saying that the ones who wrote it have conflicts of interest with ivermectin. So instead of responding to the questions. I happen to meet with the Pfizer (inaudible) trial, they were not able to address my questions. So instead of saying, okay, we cannot address your questions, they threw it back to me, saying that I had conflicts of interest when actually it did not influence the contents of the questions at all. So there was a way for them to run away from the questions. So just for you to get prepared, that now, if you believe in ivermectin, this has become a conflict of interest. So there’s an expanded ploy, so everything became conflict of interest when it comes to try to destroy the drug and the authorities find any excuse to do so, so we need to think very strategically how we’re going to…. the number of issues this study needed to be retracted and re written. Okay. [00:36:34] And we have a confession of one of the authors, saying that they knew that there was a trend to benefit. Okay, we have it. And they never mentioned this in the paper. In the discussion, you clearly see the authors wanted the drug not to work. They never mentioned the possibility of this working. [00:36:54] So when you see the discussion, it tells a lot about what the authors think. So the, this should be considered. Besides all the other issues, all cause mortality should be considered for any. COVID mortality is a very bad end point, because you can say just anything, any complications, not related to COVID, so all cause mortality for complex disease is what really matters as an end point. So they cannot use the excuse of being COVID, COVID death non-COVID death. Everything should be all-cause mortality. So that’s my first point. There are tons of other points. [00:37:32] Oh, last thing, this study, or the other studies; if you join the worst studies, you still have a reduction in mortality getting closer to statistical significance. And this study does not reflect our practice because the practice was never to give ivermectin alone, but you give ivermectin combined with vitamin C, D, zinc and others. So ivermectin alone was very convenient to be studied alone, because the disease is complex, and it would never show a hundred percent effective. So it was very interesting that we don’t see a combined therapies at our cities with ivermectin, because if you had so, you’d have a real effective trial and that would be undeniable. So what they do, they do ivermectin alone. They know there’s going to have a partial efficacy, and they can interpret the partial efficacy as no efficacy. [00:38:31] So the methods is there. It’s easy. It’s easy to detect. When you say the editor-in-chief says it doesn’t work, it means that he wanted it not to work. And it’s first time in history that we see people getting happy for not having treatments for diseases killing millions. That, that itself tells a lot about those who are behind it. [00:38:51] That that’s it. I’m sorry for being…. I wanted to present, but, uh, there are things that I couldn’t say here. [00:38:58] Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg: Thank you so much for your words and for the presentation. And it’s so important that people around the world know that there is somehow a war on ivermectin. We know that. I live in Austria and now the mainstream media newspapers, again, started to discredit ivermectin and the doctors that use it or used it in the last year. [00:39:19] So there is really a bit more on ivermectin. And so your work, the work of Lucy Kerr and her colleagues and the specialty also Tess Lawrie is so important to all of us to the people around the world. And please Tess probably before we come to the questions or probably later, you wanted to mention, or let’s say add something to this. [00:39:41] Dr. Tess Lawrie: Thanks, Maria. Yes, well, a lot of people have been asking us to update our meta analysis with the latest data and we are planning on doing that in due course, but with all the controversy around the Together study I just thought to illustrate the importance of meta analysis I could share with you the updated mortality meta analysis with the Together trial data. [00:40:06] So, and I think more than ever, it just shows the importance of not taking the latest study and, you know, out of context of the huge pool of data that has already been accumulated. Uh, the tendency is that as soon as a new study comes out, um, especially if it’s a negative study, in fact, all most recent studies, um, published in high-impact journals and both NEJM and JAMA have been negative in their conclusions, not necessarily in the data. [00:40:37] And then these findings tend to be broadcast in the media even before sometimes they’ve reached the scientific journals. So it’s really important to realize that there’s a huge number of trials that have come before these negative studies and our role as reviewers is to pool the data and then evaluate the risk of bias of the individual studies. But, you know, we, we treat all the studies equally in that we will pool the data and then we can do a series of analysis subsequently to see what would be the impact if we then remove those data or the study and does it change the findings. [00:41:12] So I’ll just share my screen. [00:41:15] So this is the analysis with the data for death or mortality. In this analysis, I’ve put in the Together trial data here and we’ve used the all cause mortality data. So it’s 20 deaths in the ivermectin arm out of 679 people who took part and then 25 deaths in the control arm out of 679. [00:41:42] And that study, although the point estimate favors ivermectin, it’s not powered enough to show a clear difference. And the estimate crosses the line of no difference. However, because, all of the data get added together in a meta analysis, when we get to the final summary estimate, we get an estimate of 0.51, which is a 49% reduction in deaths with Ivermectin compared with the control group and it’s clearly to the left of the line of no difference. So it, if it crosses this line it includes the possibility that there’s no difference, but this is clearly to the left. So it appears to exclude the possibility that there’s no difference with Ivermectin. And if we were to change these data and say, okay, well we’ll use the Covid deaths data, which is 21 and 24, you can see, it really makes very little difference. So it’s really important. And I can’t stress it enough that, any new trial that comes forward, there would have to be very many deaths in the Ivermectin arm to show that ivermectin actually caused harm compared with controls. [00:42:59] So we have a situation where Ivermectin clearly has benefit and on this analysis of mortality. And remember that mortality is not the only outcome there’s mechanical ventilation, there’s hospitalization and so on. So I would just like to say two things: [00:43:22] Yes, there are limitations with the Together trial and hopefully clarification by the study authors will put everyone’s minds at rest and we can continue using the data as they have provided, but to remember that there are many studies now and when all those data are pooled, there’s clear evidence that Ivermectin works for treatment, plus with Lucy Kerr’s beautiful study with these huge numbers, it’s very, very clear that it works for prevention too. So the media really needs to stop this disinformation that it is spreading about ivermectin and just allow people to access the safe old medicines, especially Ivermectin for treatment of Covid and also for long COVID and for post COVID vaccine care, which Ivermectin is now proving to be extremely useful from doctors’ experiences, which is now what we have to go on with this new emerging illnesses. [00:44:27] So I’m going to leave it there and hope Lucy is able to take some questions. Um, Lucy, has your audio come back yet? [00:44:35] Jennifer: She’s having trouble getting her audio working. I think Maria, you want to carry forward with questions? I’ll leave it in your hands. [00:44:43] Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg: Yes, good evening. It’s an evening in Austria. So good day, Lucy. Nice to see you. We have questions in the chat for you, so my co-host Mark Trozzi is going to ask them, thank you. [00:44:56] Mark Trozzi MD: Actually, Marie, I’ve been, I’ve been standing in the wings in case you needed me. So Karen has been monitoring the questions. Maybe I could start with one before Karen starts. I have a question for you Tess, which is, what do you think of the ivammeta.com real-time analysis of currently 81 studies? [00:45:13] Dr. Tess Lawrie: I like ivmmeta.Com a lot, and I wish that they would come forward and we could learn who’s behind the website and these analyses because they do phenomenal work. They’ve been extracting these data from the beginning. And it just gives you the real big picture on how many trials there are, on how much data there is and how consistent it is and how the emphasis on randomized controlled trials is really a mistake, especially in the context of these of these older repurposed medicines and widely available medicines, as well. [00:45:50] Karen McKenna: We’ve got a few other questions from the chat Lucy, this one’s from Dr. Tess Lawrie. It says, ‘Congratulations Lucy! Has the study influenced COVID prevention strategy and policy in Brazil, and if not, have the findings reached to people so that they can protect themselves? [00:46:06] Dr. Lucy Kerr: What has really influence the people with the work we have done past year, er, lecturing every week for mayors, for businessmen and try to teach them to use Ivermectin for the whole population, because this paper has not had just one line in the media that, uh, say was complete and what was achieved – not at all, not at all. [00:46:43] Dr. Flavio A. Cadegiani: I’m wanting to tell a story and we’ll see it’s very, um, it’s heartbreaking actually. We were conducting the study in the Amazon, just for everyone to know, there was, uh, an aggressive media campaign against anyone or any politician that ever considered using ivermectin as prophylaxis. [00:47:03] So even Itajai he suffered a lot of pressure, he really had a very hard time. So that’s a reason why only less than 10% continued using Ivermectin to one point, I need to tell this story. This should be for history. We were in the middle of the P.1 pandemic outbreak in the Amazon state, this state was the first state where the P.1 variant emerged. Hospitals were backed, even private ones. The health system was collapsed. We were flying and driving through the cities in the Amazon. And then we arrived to the city and we were including the cities in the trials, we were offering oxygen, respirators, all these machines and advices. We arrived to a city called Coari, in the middle of the Amazon. And it was not far from others. I mean, it was in the middle. We arrived there, their regional hospital was empty. Okay. The city was supposed to participate in our study for the bicalutamide for the anti-androgen. We couldn’t, we were not able to include the city as a site because the city had no sick people. [00:48:18] So what happened? We started to see the hospital was empty and the health secretary of the city wanted to tell me something. She was very shy to tell. After everything, after we rounded the hospital and talked to the city mayor, she came to me and she went to me: ‘I like to talk to in particular for one moment’. I say okay. Of course. And then I asked her what happened here, that you don’t have sick people, just like the rest of the Amazon? [00:48:52] ‘We provided ivermectin for the whole city. We provided ivermectin in all public places, in the bakeries, in libraries, everywhere. There were ivermectin free for everyone, but we cannot tell this openly, that happens when there were more than 3000 deaths per day in Brazil. And there were almost no deaths in that city’. That story is huge because I had a research team that did not believe in ivermectin to that point. They changed their opinion completely from that city, from that point on. I need to tell because that was huge, that was massive. And you see from the graphs, I can send the graphs, the graphs from the city are clearly opposite to the graphs from every other city in the states. I can send the graphs afterwards, but that city used ivermectin prophylactically, silently, because in the states where the study on hydroxychloroquine was given, to show that hydroxychloroquine kills, if you remember early 2020, is the state that receives the highest amounts of money from The Bill Gates, from the Gates Foundation, okay, in their Tropical Disease Foundation. And the treatment in Amazonas is overly suppressed, just for regional, so the city had to work hidden from the other, from the states, from the other cities. That’s the point I wanted to tell the story. [00:50:22] Dr. Lucy Kerr: And this was not the only one because this would explain the 1000 times increasing the consuming of ivermectin observed in Brazil. And the, this was told to us by (inaudible) and also because many people do not use the vaccine, but has the passport and they use ivermectin. [00:50:49] So this is the point that there are many people using Ivermectin due to our videos. You understand? I was the main person that incentivized the use off ivermectin in Brazil. They call me Mrs. Ivermectin here. You understand? So I think it’s very important to understand that Brazil has been using Ivermectin in many, many places, but not for a political or from the government. [00:51:26] Dr. Flavio A. Cadegiani: I think I found the graph from Coari. If you like, if I can share with you here. [00:51:30] Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg: Yes, please go ahead. [00:51:32] Dr. Flavio A. Cadegiani: I will compare with the state of Amazonas, okay. If you see here, this was the first wave and this was the second wave. In Amazonas, this is number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths. [00:51:50] Everywhere the second wave was much bigger than the first wave. Here, you see the opposite in the city of Coari. And another point here is that the wave was more in the beginning. I think they reinforced the ivermectin prophylaxis here and then it fell down. Just to let you know, this point here, like [inaudible] and you see that the number of cases was very low compared to the what was before. So you see that the first wave was in 2020, the second wave was much worse than the first one, which was already a huge wave, but that was not the case for Coari. And they were kind of relaxing a little bit. Of course, the population relaxes, you know that less than 10% keeps using it regularly and then probably they started using it again more strictly, which make virus went up after this first, this went down here. This quite clear. [00:52:44] Dr. Lucy Kerr: That’s true. And if we do not have the political antagonism in Itajai probably we would have the whole population doing Ivermectin. [00:52:55] The problem is the media always say, Ivermectin – do not use it -doesn’t have any effect. [00:53:04] Dr. Flavio A. Cadegiani: These cities here, used early treatments and their mortality rates was this one. These cities here, Campina and Rio did not use ivermectin. Just as a reminder, our mortality rates is higher because of the P.1 variant where 70% of deaths in Brazil occured to the gamma variant. [00:53:26] We can share the paper showing that the gamma variant was four times more lethal than the other ones. So here you see, and if you go to Coari, remember, Coari have very few resources, no ICU beds, but they used prophylaxis with ivermectin. They had half the mortality rates of this capital, with much more resources, hundreds of ICU beds, but they had suppression of treatments. [00:53:52] This is shouting to us that it works. As far as I learned in science, this is stronger than any RCT. RCTs seem to be a way to deviate from the real information, real life data, when they are rightfully controlled and their limitations are addressed is much more powerful than double-blind randomized placebo controlled with very few subjects – especially when you see that all the concerns regarding any issues are not properly addressed. [00:54:25] So I think this data should have been accepted to have this emergency approval. Never forget, even for Coari, they only started [inaudible] research after the approval of vaccines. They never started research before because it could impact in the emergency use authorization for vaccines. [00:54:47] That’s my hypothesis. We would require clarification. I’m not accusing you. Just, I would like to know. I would like to have everything clarified. That’s it. [00:54:58] Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg: Thank you. Karen, I think we have other questions in the chat before we move on. Probably some more. [00:55:06] Karen McKenna: Sure. We’ve got a few, but I’m going to start with these ones. This is from, um, Christof Plothe: ‘Do you know about other variables in that treatment approach in micronutrients, vitamin D levels, zinc, ionozphere, NAC, which positively influenced the outcome? [00:55:21] Dr. Flavio A. Cadegiani: Can you repeat the question? [00:55:22] Karen McKenna: Do you know of other treatments used, micronutrients, vitamin D levels, zinc, Ionozphere, NAC how did that influence your study? Did you map other things apart from ivermectin. [00:55:36] Okay. So first of all we need to remember that COVID-19 has a very complex pathophysiology, so it has much more mechanism of action during the sequence. [00:55:47] So it’s very hard to believe that a monotherapy would do all the work for a hundred percent of the cases. So synergistic therapies may be the solution, just like for HIV. HIV only had real treatments when they started the HIV cocktails of drugs. So in this case here, there are more than 100 options we could use as combined therapies, associations. [00:56:12] But if you compare, drug by drug, a head-to-head comparison, if you compare one drug, I think ivermectin alone works more than any other alone, if you consider each one. But it really depends on the variant as well. So the only current variant you can have hydroxychloroquine working because it works on the [inaudible] the way that very interesting. [00:56:33] So it depends a lot. My studies we conducted probably the population that used ivermectin may have used vitamins as well, [inaudible]. But however, the vast majority of the population was not able to purchase more vitamins. So that makes me question whether they really used more than ivermectin. [00:56:57] I don’t think the majority did, because they will not be able to purchase other vitamins. By that time vitamins raised their prices a lot because of the search. So the majority was treated everyone was treated in public health system and they were not able to purchase other vitamins etcetera. So I don’t think so. Unlike this ivermectin costs very, well, the prices raise here was too affordable. And in 2021, when we started with this variant killing thousands of people everywhere, everyone was using ivermectin. Everyone was using ivermectin, irregularly, okay, many times. But many of them I’m a hundred percent, I’m positive that there were influences from these users in the outcomes of the Together trial. That’s important. I think the Together trial by its design, was supposed to release all the data from all the arms, not only ivermectin, out to the public. [00:57:59] It will be very interesting. There will be a proof of transparency and in case they got something wrong, there would be a great chance for authors to read it and apologize and correct. I think this is a good time for them to do that. I think it is time for transparency. I would love to see that. Not to say I’m right, they were wrong. [00:58:18] It’s enough for having battles and battles. I think it’s time to call people to work together and look, okay, you may have overreacted over this saying that ivermectin doesn’t work at all which is completely wrong. Your clinical and research skills do not feed with your conclusions, you’re better than that, than concluding that it simply doesn’t work. In the case of Eric Rubin, you clearly see that he’s influenced by the narrative or whatever. But I think there will be a time that okay, we need to bring them. The point is how many lives could be here today, if we hadn’t fought so strongly against ivermectin. [00:58:57] And the question that remains is, if the drug really didn’t work, if Ivermectin really didn’t work and it’s just water in terms of safety, doesn’t make, if you take any drug for any symptom, the risks are higher than ivermectin. Why was this fight so strong against ivermectin? If it didn’t work, why were they fighting against the drug that didn’t work? [00:59:21] They would just leave it alone, leave it there. It wouldn’t influence. So this questions by themselves are more than enough for people to start questioning. And when we come down in two to five years perhaps, when history will be told retrospectively, these questions may have answers. That’s it. [00:59:44] Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg: Thank you so much again, thank all of you for this great information and presentation about ivermectin. [00:59:52] And I think Jennifer, my lovely steering committee member just wrote in the chat that we have of course things set up and I think it is really important that scientists from around the world who are pro ivermectin start to write letters to the editors. And I think there are so many awakening, mainstream media journalists. We have this in Europe right now in Germany and Austria, for example. So we really reach out to these people to present them our data and we can really hope that these let’s call them guerilla mainstream journalists start to bring out the message about how safe and effective ivermectin is. So thank you. [01:00:31] A big, thank you goes out to all the doctors around the world who still even if they are discredited around the world still prescribe and give ivermectin to the people if they need it. So brave souls out there, a really big thank you from all of us, for this great work that they are doing. [01:00:50] So we move on now to the next part of our tonight’s meeting with the partner introduction. [01:00:57] Now I am really happy that I present Riekie Erasmus from South Africa. She founded the Covid Care Alliance, South Africa and Riekie Erasmus attorneys. Rieke Erasmus has been in the legal field since 1980, as a prosecutor, magistrate and state advocate. [01:01:15] She started practicing independently as an attorney in 1995 and has the right of appearance in the Supreme Court of South Africa. Riekie has a keen interest in all family matters, personal injury claims and all litigation. So good evening and good evening in Austria, good day for everybody else. And I’m happy that we have you tonight and looking forward to your presentation. [01:01:41] Riekie Erasmus: Thank you very much, Maria and Mark for having me here and I want to say also thank you to Shabnam who introduced me to the World Council for Health and for you accepting me in the, World Council for Health. It is so heartwarming to see the number of experts, medical practitioners, legal minds, and other experts who are part of this very good movement. [01:02:12] I realized in the second month of COVID that this is a scam, it’s just, I think I was actually born a detective and not an a lawyer in the first instance because I have the ability to see through a scam very, very quickly. So when I realized that we are having a big problem here in that everything does not, um, tele, I started looking into this and, in the beginning of 2021, I realized that this thing is so big and I saw the panic and trauma that individuals suffered and how fearful they were. [01:03:00] And I realized that. They need help, because the people who were speaking against the narrative were few and far apart. I think I was one of the first lawyers that started speaking out about this problem. And I have been scolded and I have been threatened that they’re going to file criminal charges against me for spreading false information about COVID and they were going to report me to the legal practice council or governing body. [01:03:36] And it was, it was so shocking, that I just could not believe that people can not only believe the narrative when we have a culture of our government not acting in the best interest of the citizens. And yet in respect of the COVID regulations and laws and issues that popped up from government, they just believe everything that government’s said. And every attempt from myself and other people who had the same thinking that I had, was just met with either a scold or a ridicule. And I was very vocal on social media about this, and then my partner Pete Smanjak connected with me on LinkedIn. [01:04:31] At that point in time, I already opened a WhatsApp group and a Telegram group just Covid Care Alliance. And [inaudible] said to me that this thing should go bigger and we should have a website, he will join me and so that we can really help the public through a website. Because on LinkedIn I was blocked or removed because I made a comment on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Page and they didn’t like that so I was kicked out of LinkedIn and they haven’t admitted me again. And on Facebook, I have been in the Facebook jail every so often and more, more often than not, especially lately this year. So I then realized that this thing is bigger than I believed it would be and I, I saw that there was not going to be a quick end to this problem and, the panic and the fear in the public just became more and more, especially when they came out with the, with the jabs and there was jab mandates, et cetera. So I then decided to register a nonprofit company COVID Care Alliance to be the vehicle through which we can manage this problem and to give wide assistance to members of the public. [01:05:54] And also to unite the individuals so that they know where to go for assistance to just talk about their fears and their problems. Myself being the lawyer, obviously I help on the legal side and Peter Smanjak is regenerative health practitioner and also a financial services advisor. [01:06:16] So he Is able to look out for us for anti narrative medical aids and financial products. And obviously then also the regenerative health issues. So we help the public by having weekly zoom meetings on a Thursday evening at seven, where either me or Peter will speak or both of us. And then we will also have a guest speaker on one or other topic that is relevant. COVID Care Alliance is also a one of the applicants in the kids vacs case where the ACDP was the was the driving force and Free the Children. And we just realized that our court is really not, assisting us in any way. [01:07:05] They find any way possible to just postpone the matters, to postpone the matters. The kids vacs case was filed as an urgent application, but it’s now four months, five months later, we’re still not in court. Our date I think is the 28 of April . Now, if you think that you are dealing with children’s lives and there’s no need for a vaccination or a jab for the children, but yet they are pushing to jab the children, just shows how vile they are and it’s pure evil. [01:07:44] I realized also very early into this, thing that we, that you sit here with, it’s a fight between good and bad. There’s no gray matters, it’s black or white. And the citizens of the world have also become two groups: Those who were against the narrative and those who were for the narrative. And those who were for the jabs and those were against the jabs. Which is a clear medical discrimination issue actually also. I do believe many of the people who are for the narrative, it’s just ignorant or they do not want to go through the trouble of doing their own research, they’re just gullible and accept what is told to them. And I’ve also realized that everyone who was a conspiracy theorist in the beginning and still is called conspiracy theorist, is actually critical thinkers. And will just not accept what it told to them, but to go and do their own research and sort it out for themselves as to what is going on here. [01:08:52] Also I realized that God has a hand in the people who are anti-narratives. Every person that I met and I have to say that for that I want to thank Covid because of made the most beautiful, wonderful, religious people we can rely on and just the fact that each and every one of you and others that’s not even here, has been putting time and effort and their expertise to fight this narrative, is, that is not a coincidence. That shows that God is in control and he has everything in his hand and he is the guiding force. [01:09:37] And if you look at what you have found works in the sense of preventing COVID or to treat people with ivermectin and all those vitamin D vitamin C, et cetera, it all comes from nature. And the first and foremost one was vitamin D or get sunlight, go out into the open, enjoy nature. [01:10:01] When we were told that we’re now going to be placed in lockdown, we were told; if you feel you have symptoms, just go home and isolate yourself, drink a lot of water and p ainkillers. I mean, that is so ridiculous. How can any person with two brain cells accept that that is good advice, for what they say is such a serious disease that we must all be in lockdown. [01:10:33] So that was the first thing that triggered me. And when, if you realize, if you add now also after the fact that you realized that you needed the sunlight, you need the fresh air, and all these natural medication, it’s a further indication that we have to get back to our roots and get back to nature. Because if we eat healthy, if we live healthy and not, drink all these, big pharma medications that has so many side effects, then we will all be so much better off. [01:11:12] A huge problem that I have experienced is that even though we have been empowering individuals with knowledge and support, they still do not have the ability to take on, for instance, their employers when they are confronted with these jab mandates. You can advise them, this is what they should do, and this is the procedure and that it’s all unconstitutional and these laws or speaking against it and when it comes to the fact of, okay, I’m going to write this letter now and you must present it to your employer, then they will tell me, okay, now but that sounds too harsh, I say, but they don’t care about you. They are forcing you to take a poison. So how can you now have any feelings for them? [01:12:07] You have to stand up for yourself and you have to push back. And I think that has been the most difficult thing that I had to deal with, is just to get the people to understand that. I felt that I was more of a therapist or a psychologist than I was a lawyer, just to get the people to get over that thinking of they cannot take on their employer. [01:12:33] So yes we have a hard time. There’s still not many lawyers that is against the narrative. I’ve even had a lot of my colleagues that said to me that I’m mad. And they did not even want to allow me to post on our WhatsApp group. Anything that is anti narrative. And if you’re just speaking in social events with them, it’s as if they want to, you know, push you to the side. [01:13:04] So it’s a very difficult situation to be in, but I begin to see the light, slowly, but surely every day, there’s more light in the tunnel. And I just hope it’s not a train. Thank you again for giving me this opportunity and thank you for all the help that you give. I know in the kids vacs case, Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Craig gave affidavits, and I know everybody has offered in meetings that we had, if you need an affidavit, just ask for it. And that is so much help, I really appreciate it. Thank you. You are all angels in this dark, demon world. [01:13:52] Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg: Thank you, Rieke, for your words and for your presentation. I’m also pretty sure that we will be in the right place at the right time and that, you know, we are strong enough to stand in this together and my steering committee, Christof Plothe made a nice comment in the chat and it is also a spiritual comment and Christof, I need to find it right now, a quote from Buddha in this case, can you, quickly say. [01:14:22] Christof Plothe: … that there are three things that cannot be hidden, the sun, the moon and the truth. [01:14:28] Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg: Yeah, and that is it. And I think we don’t even have to, you know, call us if some people has a problem with the term religious people, but for sure, spiritual people who know that there’s a reason why we are here and why we gathered together and we are really sure that we can make a difference, find a better way together and focus on solutions. And this is also a big part of the Better Way Conference that takes place from May 20th to May 22nd. So, in the chat, we have a couple of questions for you and either my colleagues Karen McKenna or Mark Trozzi are going to ask you, thank you. [01:15:08] Karen McKenna: Well, I think the first question is from Mark Trozzi, he’s saying your insights and clarity are precious and soon we’ll have this video share of you speaking, but are there other links and resources you can share so that those not in attendance today can hear your messages? [01:15:25] Riekie Erasmus: Yes. Our Telegram group is T dot N E slash COVID care Alliance. Our website is just COVID care alliance.com. And, I write memos for the members, to give them all the details of the law and Peter writes things on the, on the medical and the financial side. So that is all posted on the Telegram group and on the website. We also have a Facebook page, but that is not very active because I simply cannot get to all the pages. [01:16:02] As it is already, my practice, that has had no labor court cases, is now maybe 30% labor matters. So I had to overnight become an expert in labor matters and I’m so busy with just helping people against their employers that the social media pages is mostly run by the admin. [01:16:31] Karen McKenna: Thank you. I think that’s the end of the questions Maria. [01:16:34] Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg: Thank you, Rieke And if there are some other questions in the chats please go back to the people who ask the questions in the chat that this really nice, um, have you, and we move on to our next guest speaker. [01:16:48] I want to introduce Kim Knight from New Zealand. [01:16:52] What does the 23rd century healthcare system look like? So for the past 30 years, Kim has immersed herself in studying and training in a multitude of complimentary therapies, both for her own healing and to help clients recover from chronic illnesses often deemed incurable without drugs.. This training and clinical experience have given her a unique insight into the possibilities of a radically different health care systems, which can combine the best of conventional medicine with many newly emerging cutting edge modalities of the future, where the client has the opportunity to play the lead role in their own healthcare. [01:17:33] Humanity is also now faced with a choice; to use technology for the benefit or potential harm of human health. Which will we choose. It’s up to us and being informed is the first step. [01:17:45] In this presentation, Kim will share her 10 fundamental principles for underpinning a new health care system created for and by the people. Really looking forward to your presentation Kim. Thank you. [01:18:00] Kim Knight: Hello everyone. I I’m just gonna share my screen. [01:18:03] So 23rd century or 22nd century, whichever we would like. Healthcare, how will it take care of its people and how will people take care of themselves? And as just said I’m going to be sharing 10 principles for an emerging and new and improved health care system. And just to say that these are not the only principles, these are just the 10 that came to my mind as I was preparing this presentation. [01:18:31] And, I feel it’s important in order to make sense of what I’m going to share to just give a little bit of a backstory of my background, because after all, there are 8 billion people on the planet, what gives me the right to suggest this. And for the first 30 years of my life, I was brought up in what I would call the conventional medical system, where the only thing that I knew, and I mean, the only thing that I knew, was that if you had a problem, a health problem, you went to a doctor, maybe you will referred to a specialist and the solution was medicational surgery. [01:19:05] So that was the first 30 years of my life. And then I started to explore other modalities because I wasn’t finding all the answers that I needed with conventional medicine. And that sent me on a long, long journey, which I’m not gonna go into now, but a long, long journey of exploration and that was, we could say the next 30 years of my life, so now you can guess how old I am. [01:19:30] And so I would say I have a foot in both camps because there is quite a division still between what I call conventional medicine and natural medicine. And this is just a screenshot of just some of the modalities that I tried over my thirty year year exploration into natural medicine. [01:19:53] And then that led me to then train in quite a few different modalities in natural complimentary medicine and become a practitioner. And I also want to add in here that I have also done a lot of what I’d call spiritual exploration, and I think it is important to add in here because you know, it, it can be, I think, a big missing piece to, to understand this part of ourselves. [01:20:17] And it has given me a much, much deeper understanding of what life is about and also what health care is about. So I’m just one of thousands of healthcare practitioners who were working in what I call health empowerment, healthcare education, creating a new and improved way. And so I have clinical experience since 2006 in helping people do do this and in a very different way from the conventional medical system. [01:20:49] And I’m not, by the way, anti conventional medicine, I think there’s a place for everything and good in everything, but that there are other approaches that have been excluded up until now, and they really need to be included and I’ll be talking more about that later. [01:21:08] What is really going on in healthcare at the moment and what are the plans by the powers that be so to speak? Well, it was interesting because in about 2012, I just had this urge to start speaking and presenting at medical conferences. And I usually found that I was the only natural healthcare practitioner at these conferences. [01:21:31] And I was sharing information on how patients, clients, how they could heal themselves and how they could reverse chronic illnesses, which, over and over again, I would hear the same story: I go to my doctor, my doctor tells me either it’s all in my head or there’s no solution. [01:21:47] And that was what happened to me as well. I had chronic fatigue. I was unable to work for 10 years, I researched and searched and searched it’s what led me on this, this journey. And then they would, they would come to me or somebody like me and they would find out and understand why they were actually ill, even though their doctor had been telling them, there’s no cause, and there’s no reason, you know, if your chronic fatigue and your fibromyalgia, and then they’d go and see an alternative natural health practitioner and it would all be explained to them and they would discover the root cause of their illness and they would get well. And they would get well not because something external was applied to them or, you know, medication surgery – that’s what I mean by external – they would get well, because they would make the necessary changes inside them that they needed to make. And so I wanted to share this at these conferences because I thought this is, this is important isn’t it. And yet one of the things that I found was that people didn’t seem to be, I mean, I, you know, yes, they were sort of interested, but there just didn’t seem to be as much interest as I thought there might be in this new approach to healthcare. And even though I, I approached the director general of health, New Zealand at the time and I even went up to the stand from the ministry of health at one of these conferences, nobody seemed to be interested. [01:23:07] And it was only really in the last few months, well of last year that I started to understand with this bigger agenda that’s going on; okay, now I’m starting to get why they’re not interested; it doesn’t fit their agenda. And really what’s important to understand is that humanity has really gone off track. [01:23:26] And what is natural has become unnatural. And what is unnatural has become natural. So we now find ourselves, and this is obviously quite simplistic, but it’s just a simple way of how I see it, is that we have this, what I feel is unnatural situation where the trans humanism, genetic modification, dehumanization, despiritualization, separation, which by the way, this refers back to my presentation in February on the bigger picture of, okay, why is this all going on, versus, what we could say is natural; following nature, being in harmony with nature, what is beneficial rather than harmful, where we are, self-empowered where priorities are love and care and connection. And it’s like these two pathways that are becoming even more delineated at the moment. And so we’re standing in front of two doors and it’s like, okay, which door are we going to choose? [01:24:31] So let’s take a look behind door one in order to look at door two. And over a hundred years ago, Rudolph Steiner, who was a brilliant man, he created the Steiner schools of education, he wrote many, many books, he wrote ‘In the future, the soul will be eliminated by medicine. Under the pretense of ‘a healthy point of view’, there will be a vaccine whereby the human organism will be treated as soon as possible directly at birth so that the human being cannot develop the thought of the existence of a soul and spirit’. If you follow the link on screen, you can read just a massive amount of information pertaining to this. [01:25:13] And just a couple of weeks ago, this was written by Joseph Mercola talking about how the globalists are taking over the health systems or wanting to; ‘The next assault on human freedom involves a legalized takeover of national healthcare systems by the WHO. This stealth attack – with its initial plans already backed by many nations – will begin full implementation in 2024 if it is not quickly recognized and fought’. [01:25:40] And I’m sure you’re all very familiar with this and the Pandemic Treaty. A lot of people are talking about this online and you can obviously, I’m not going to go into it here, but you can follow this up for yourselves, but interesting, that the scheduled time for public comment is up until April the 29th, so, you know, right now. And just to point out a couple of things from this website that I was looking at this information, which was by James Rugowski; ‘The WHO seeks to enforce an authoritarian, one size fits all one, health approach to world health that is controlled by them and them alone’ and ‘the negotiations of this pandemic treaty are being controlled by the bureaucrats, politicians, lawyers, public health officials, non-governmental organizations and pharmaceutical representatives’ but ‘the input of independent minded doctors, nurses, scientists, and health professionals is being completely ignored’. [01:26:35] This is important to understand, this is behind door one. And just yesterday, I watched the most amazing video, which I highly recommend with Todd Callender, which literally had my jaw on the floor when he was sharing just some of the latest information about the vaccine and what is going on. I mean, it really is absolutely unbelievable and yet true. It’s like these scifi movies that we’ve been watching, you know, that have been create well, I haven’t personally watched them because I find I don’t enjoy them, but I know that so many scifi movies have been produced over the last 10, 15 years and it’s like, we’re in a scifi movie come to life, when truth is stranger than fiction. [01:27:22] And then I also heard last week and I found it quite interesting that as I was preparing this presentation, all these little tidbits of information were coming my way is last week, um, that there was the world government summit in Dubai, which focuses on issues of futurism, technology and information. [01:27:40] And one of the topics was the future of healthcare systems. You can go to the website, there’s just like pages and pages of information. This is just a few snapshots and I didn’t have the time to drill down, but next generation health care will be driven by digitalization, artificial intelligence and mobile connectivity will transform public health. The global health forum held in partnership with the WHO, discusses prospects for the rest of 2022, and the way societies are adjusting to the new normal and the forum will discuss adopting new technologies in personalized care, remote medicine, genomic medicine, medical robotics, data-driven algorithms, and biotechnological advancements. [01:28:24] And I remember when I was attending conferences 2016/17/18, they were talking about all of this. And I remember thinking; that’s not really what healthcare is about, that is not what being a human is about. Why are they bringing all this in? And now I’m starting to understand in a bigger way. [01:28:45] And most people obviously are aware of the Internet of Things and not many people are aware of the internet of bodies where it is an extension of the internet of things and connects the human body to a network through devices that are ingested, implanted or connected to the body in some way. Once connected, data can be exchanged and the body and the device can be remotely monitored and controlled. And this is what ‘they’ are blatantly saying, this is where healthcare is going, where they want it to go. Dr. Harari, who’s a lead advisor to Klaus Schwab said that people will walk around with biometric sensors on, or even inside their bodies, which will allow Google or Facebook or whoever, to constantly monitor what’s happening inside their bodies. And there’s a video clip that you can watch if you like I can play it later if we have time, it’s just a one minute clip. [01:29:38] So this is where they’re wanting to go and where they are going. And the really scary, concerning thing about this is that it’s all happening, but the public are not being told about it. I mean, if you go and speak to the average person on the street today, they will have no idea of any of this. None of it. [01:29:58] So I’ve been working in a different world and I plan to work in a different world and it’s what I call behind door two. And to set the context it’s important to remember, and again, this references the presentation I did in February, humans have been on the planet a long, long time. We tend to get really wrapped up in, okay, we’re in 2020/21/22, what’s been happening the last couple of years, but we need to really expand our vision out and just remember that we’ve been here for eons. And interestingly enough, we already did a great job of nearly destroying humanity in the age of Lemuria and Atlantis, which for many years, I used to think that was just a myth from a film, you know, it heard of Lemuria and Atlantis, but actually these were real ages. And if you go and read up on what actually happened, we had great technology, especially in Atlantis, but it was used for the wrong reason. And humanity literally nearly blew itself up and destroyed itself. It did blow part of itself up, but some of it continued. [01:31:07] So if you want to learn more about that, go and look at those website links on the screen. There’s a great body of teachings called the ageless wisdom teachings, which I’ve been studying for over 20 years now and the very first line in the book, Esoteric Healing, which is all about the art of healing says; ‘The entire subject of healing is as old as the ages themselves and has ever been the subject of investigation and experiment, but as to the right to use of the healing faculty and forces, the knowledge is in its infancy’. [01:31:39] And this was written a hundred years ago, this book and it was sort of, um, channels, I suppose you could say as one word of saying it, or it was dictated by the Master DK, Master Djwhal Khul to Alice Bailey who wrote Esoteric Healing. [01:31:57] Time for some good news and I’m very, very much about focusing on what works and being solution-focused. [01:32:03] The good news is that many of the improvements that we’re really seeking for this better way, they’re already here and they’ve been building behind the scenes for a long time. But again, most of the public, if you go out on the street and you speak to the average person on the street who is used to going to a doctor for their health problems, they will not know about these, or they’ll know very, very little about them. [01:32:27] And it’s important to remember that the new replaces the previous. So in other words an old building has to be demolished in order to build a new building on the same block of land. And so at the moment, one of the things that we’re seeing right now is a breakdown of what I call the conventional healthcare system. [01:32:47] Obviously there’s a lot of amazing things in the conventional medical system, but there’s a lot of it that is now it is out of date and to be quite frank, some of it is really barbaric. I remember speaking to a client once who had had horrendous electro therapy, electroshock therapy treatment, I mean, that’s just barbarism. Just shocking. And I just want to say before I get into these 10 principles, that when I started off preparing this presentation, I saw that I had so much to include in it and it’s like, no, that’s just too much for a 20 minute presentation. So actually getting into the details and the specifics of what is preventative health care, what is good birth care, what is good death care? What does good environmental health care? What is totality healing? What is the intelligent or moral use of technology, et cetera, et cetera, that will be in, in another presentation, hopefully at the conference. And so I just want to focus here on 10 very basic principles for what I think is good healthcare. [01:33:52] So the number one: Harmlessness. All doctors swear an oath to do no harm and this is just so important not just for healthcare, but for life in general. And the Buddhists talk a lot about this; harmlessness. I remember watching a Tibetan documentary years ago and they were building a new monastery and the monks as they were going through the earth to sort of excavate the earth, they were doing it by hand and picking out the worms so that they wouldn’t kill any worms. [01:34:25] Just a good, good example of harmlessness. We need to do no harm and instead we create benefit in life enhancement. And most of all, it’s the client or the patient’s needs, which are a priority, not personal gain. And of course we can see very, very clearly that this is not what is happening at the moment with our current world situation. [01:34:48] And it broke my heart yesterday, I just got a message from a good friend of mine, who said that a good friend of hers her husband had to be sent off in an ambulance because he had COVID and she wasn’t allowed to go with him. And he was sent off in an ambulance to hospital and he died. [01:35:05] I mean that is not caring really for, for the person at a fundamental level. So again, I’m not going to go into detail. I’m just sort of going through very briefly, these, these 10 principles. [01:35:18] The second one: A True Understanding of Health. What is health? Is it more than just getting rid of symptoms or the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, in other words, you know, you don’t do anything about it until you’re, you’re sick. Well, yes, there’s a lot more. And in the dictionary, the definition of health and healing is to become whole. And the way that I, I always describe health to people and the different aspects of ourselves that we need to approach – I call this my five-star human – where we have the spiritual side of ourselves, whatever that is, that’s different for each person, we have our physical body, which everybody focuses a lot on, we have our mind, we have our emotional being and we have our energy. And all aspects need to be taken into account for true healing. So a human is much more than a biomechanical, physical conglomeration of tissue cells, organs and bones. [01:36:16] And it is said that we’re a spiritual being, having a human experience. In other words, we are consciousness, spirit, mind, emotions, energy and more. And we’re here to evolve and grow to fulfill our potential and destiny to be of service, to be, and offer love. And we are part of a bigger cosmos with intelligent design and purpose. And this has to be taken into account in health. [01:36:41] And in the conventional medicine medical system, which primarily focuses on just one part one, fifth; the physical body, this is why it’s not working. This is why people have come to me after. And I, you know, had to explore myself because, uh, just trying to fix the physical is not true healing. [01:37:01] And I remember many years ago going to a workshop with a man called Michael Rhodes, and after at the end of the workshop, he challenged us to go away and if anybody said; ‘Who are you? What’s your name?’ Or something, we had to say, ‘I’m a magnificent metaphysical, multidimensional being of light’ because he said that is who you truly are. [01:37:22] And in the REN XUE system, which is one of the main modalities that I’ve trained in since 2009, they say that true health actually is a sense of wellbeing. It is good health. It is true happiness. It is growing, evolving, and growing, and it is being able to contribute. And these are what are called the five treasures of life. [01:37:47] And if we want to be truly healthy, then we have to focus on all five aspects and we have to grow and cultivate these five aspects. And my first Qigong teacher, who was the one, the person who really helped me turn around my chronic fatigue. Um, and I did many, many years of training with him, he said, healing is transformation. You change. And you’re never the same again. So a lot of people often say ‘well I just want to go back to how things were’, well know, healing is an opportunity to grow and evolve. And often when we get sick, it’s because we need to grow and evolve. And the sickness comes to wake us up, to help us to change and grow. [01:38:27] So healing is transformation. It is changing. So people have to understand what health is in a much bigger perspective. And also understand what is called totality health, because, what is it that needs to be healed? Is it the illness or is it the person? And one of my favorite sayings again from my, my first teacher is; ‘ You don’t heal an illness, you heal a person. You don’t heal a disease. You heal a whole person’s life’. So when I work with somebody where we’re looking at their whole life and we’re healing, not just that, the five aspects of that person, where we’re looking at the whole life and healing and addressing the whole life, which is a much, much different approach to health. [01:39:13] And we also need to understand that our body has incredible self-healing powers. It is designed to self-regulate, auto regulate. It is literally designed to do that. And we have to know how that works and we have to be able to trust that it can do its job rather than interfering a lot of the time when it doesn’t need to be interfered with, and the word interfere; into fear. [01:39:40] So one of the things that people really don’t understand, and that was a turning point for me, is understanding that symptoms are often part of the self healing auto-regulation process. They are not the enemy, they are the friend, but how many people would think that when they have a symptom? So this means that there’s much new education to come for people to understand this. And once you do understand that it’s not rocket science, everything changes. [01:40:09] So this then brings me to health education. We must have a health education for the general public, where the client/patient is taught how to play a leading role in their health and their wellbeing. [01:40:26] And I call this Self Care – a revolution in Health Care. And that is all I do with the people that come to me. I’m just an educator and I’m just teaching them what they didn’t know before, which I didn’t know before. And it took me many years to work it out. And actually it doesn’t take that long once, you know, to, to pass on to somebody else. [01:40:48] And so the client and the patient, they learn to take much greater self responsibility and indeed it is our duty to do so. And they learn about the incredible self healing powers of their body-mind. And there is greater education in how to release symptoms, but also to prevent illness. And we can start this in childhood from the get go. [01:41:11] We just learn it as part and parcel of, of how we grow up and live our life. This is all possible. It’s all possible right now. And as I said before for example understanding the self healing process of the body mind and that, when we get sick, it’s interestingly enough, it’s often in what we call the regeneration healing phase after a period of stress, because there has to be this rebalancing and reharmonizing and autoregulation process going on inside the body. [01:41:44] And one of the greatest misnomers is thinking that symptoms are wrong when actually they’re often part of the healing process of the body. [01:41:54] And teaching that prevention is better than cure. And apparently in ancient China, you didn’t pay your doctor, if you got sick, because it meant that they hadn’t done their job properly in teaching you prevention, if you got sick. And, I feel that people need to learn that the different areas of what affect their health, for example, how to manage their life, their everyday life, how to manage other people, how to manage their emotions, how to manage their stress, how to manage their energy, how to clear trauma, how to be in control of their mind and their spiritual connection. [01:42:31] These are what I call my nine pillars of health mastery, and all these need to be taken into account for authentic health care. Number five; healthcare is integrative where everything has its place and there is inclusion rather than exclusion. So, it’s an interesting word ‘exclusive’, often we could say all this luxury hotel is exclusive, if there’s an exclusion element that you know of the rich and famous or whatever. And it can be applied here as well. And at the moment, healthcare is not inclusive. Conventional medicine has got the big chunk of the pie. [01:43:13] Functional medicine is coming in, lifestyle medicine is starting to come in, and then there’s many, many natural medicines and complimentary medicines, which are seen as fringe, not effective, that, that is not inclusive, that needs to change. And for the past hundred or so years, it has been seen that and – sorry, no offense to anybody here who is a doctor, this is just the system that we’re talking about and many doctors are doing good – but doctor has been seen as king and conventional medicine it rules the roost, so to speak, but there are many other approaches, lifestyle medicine, functional medicine, just starting to come in the last few years for centuries, complimentary and alternative. so called alternative medicine have been around. So, you know, let’s take the best from everything and create a truly integrative healthcare system. [01:44:06] And I could give examples of when I’ve approached other associations and said; ‘Hey, you know, I’d love to share some of this’, and then they find out the modalities that I’ve trained in and I’m not deemed as authentic enough and I’ve just been shunned. It’s been incredible. [01:44:23] So number six, is; created and governed by experienced health professionals. And this relates back to that slide that I showed behind door one, where the moment, you know, all the rules and regulations are being created by government officials and whoever, who many of them have no idea what health care is really about. [01:44:45] So we need a multidisciplinary blending of wisdom and knowledge from different cultures and traditions. We need to be, open-minded, inclusive not exclusive, where people are put first and profit is last and we have integrity and harmlessness. We just want to create beneficial outcomes. [01:45:07] And this will come if it’s created by health professionals who are coming from a place of wisdom and true understanding. [01:45:16] And number seven; choice freewill and autonomy, where the respects and the needs and the wishes of the client/patient are taken into account, and they have the autonomy to participate at the level that they’re ready to engage. [01:45:31] So for example, some people might only be ready for conventional medical approach, whereas others will be ready for other approaches and where there is a choice of health care and a choice of death care and also choice of birth care. And there is informed consent. [01:45:48] And number eight, human versus technology. Again, referencing behind door one, talking about all the technology that they’re wanting to bring in. If we’re going to use technology, it has to be for the true good of the person. And it needs to be proceeded by and led by authentic wisdom. And unfortunately, one of the things that I’ve noticed over the past 10 years is people getting carried away almost by technology, but they don’t have the wisdom to understand it or to use it properly. [01:46:26] And I remember being in a conference some years ago with a guy called Roger Hamilton, who is a futurist, he calls himself a futurist and he’s always ahead of the game and, you know, what’s up and coming. And I like a lot of what he has to say, but I don’t agree with everything that he has to say. And he was showing us all these videos of Elon Musk saying this, that and the other. And you’re in a new digital things coming in and I remember saying to him, yeah, but Roger, if people don’t have the consciousness and the wisdom around these technologies, they can do a lot of harm. [01:46:58] And he just sort of, poo-pooed what I said, but I’m glad that I said it because I can see that actually it’s more valid now than ever. [01:47:07] Number nine; practitioner self care. Unfortunately, there is just so much burnout amongst health professionals in particular, in the conventional medical system; nurses and doctors, but also in the natural health care system. So much burnout, so much overworking, so much ridiculous long hours, especially student doctors. This has to stop. We have to come back to what is a healthy life, a good work-life balance. This has to change. [01:47:38] And lastly; 10. True Caring and Community. So we’re really putting the patient’s needs first and Dr. Robin Youngson is, uh, recently retired New Zealand doctor who talks a lot about this and actually brought it into hospitals where he could, and he’s written a book where it’s truly that the patient first. And if that was happening, we wouldn’t have people dying alone in a hospital bed, in a COVID ward now, without their family around them, that is just inhumane to me. It is not not caring. So we need to change that. [01:48:15] So we’re at a crossroads at the moment where the powers that be, want to take us down one path and personally I’m going down a different path and we are now at a choice point. So I hope that it was interesting and that is my presentation. [01:48:33] Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg: Wow. That was so interesting that many people in the chat ask, if we could, have the presentation that you just showed to us, because there were so many important things and wise words in it. So if that is possible or probably if you could just give us an email address where we can reach you or whatever your homepage, because I think many listeners are interested to find out more about you and about your really inspiring work. [01:49:00] Thank you so much. And I’m sure there are comments or questions in the chat. So please, Karen, if you would be so nice to ask them. [01:49:09] Karen McKenna: Well, the main questions in the comments in the chat, were basically asking for links to the slides. So I think that was the main question was ‘please come and get more information’. [01:49:18] And you mentioned the conference. Are you speaking at the conference? [01:49:22] Kim Knight: Yes. [01:49:23] Karen McKenna: Great. [01:49:23] Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg: Super. So we are looking looking out for that. Our next to please read the comments in the chat and we really we really want to say thank you from the bottom of our heart, because we need health practitioners like you out in the world, and many more, I hope will follow you. [01:49:40] So in the next part of the meeting, so we are slightly coming to an end and I want to say in matters arising now, something that is really important, I think. In the United States of America on Sunday, the 10th of April there will be a really big rally in the center, in the heart of Los Angeles and California. And the webpage is defeatthemandatesUS.com and a partner is also the World Council for Health and Children’s Health Defense, FLCCC, and so many others. Please see the webpage. And if you’re in the United States of America and able to go to these rallies, please, please go there. Thank you. [01:50:25] As I said, I’m an activist, mother and doctor and resilience coach. As we said in the beginning and in the middle of the meeting, there will be the Better Way Conference by the World Council for Health May 20 to May 22nd and we are really looking forward to our great speakers on really important solutions in these times. [01:50:45] What I want to share with you now, for the end of the meeting is a recommendation for a song that really inspires me. It is by the band Rising Appalachia and the song is called ‘I am resilient’. And I really want to encourage you to listen to this song, you will find it on YouTube. [01:51:06] I want to read out the lyrics to you to motivate people who are listening, because I think that is a really strong message. The lyrics are as follows: [01:51:17] ‘I am resilient. I trust the movement. I negate the chaos, uplift the negative. I’ll show up at the table again and again and again, I’ll close my mouth and learn to listen. [01:51:31] ‘These times are poignant. The winds have shifted. It’s all we can do to stay uplifted pipelines through backyards, wolves howling out front. Yeah, I got my crew, but the truth is what I want. [01:51:49] ‘Realigned on and on point, power to the peaceful, prayers to the waters, women at the center, all vessels open to give and receive. Let’s see the system brought down to its knees. [01:52:04] ‘I’m made a thunder. I’m made the lightening, I’m made of dirt, yeah, made of the fine things. My father taught me that I am a speck of dust and this world was made for me. So let’s go and to try our luck. [01:52:20] ‘I’ve got my roots down, down, down, down deep. I’ve got my roots down, down deep. I’ve got my roots down deep. [01:52:28] ‘So what are we doing here? What has been done? What are you going to do about it when the world comes undone? My voice feels tiny and I’m sure so does yours, but put us all together, make a mighty roar. I am resilient. I trust the movement. I negate the chaos. Uplift a negative. I’ll show up at the table again and again and again. I’ll close my mouth and learn to listen’. [01:52:55] So I wanted to end tonight’s meeting with these words, but also want to encourage you to join our Telegram channel, to keep informed. And, um, of course you can see tonight’s meeting in the World Council for Health.org webpage/newsroom. You can see a replay of the weekly meetings that we have, and we’re really looking forward to for next week’s meeting. [01:53:21] On behalf of the World Council for Health, thank you for joining. And we see us next week. Good night. Gute nacht from Austria. Thank you. [01:53:29]  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.