top of page

Dr. Tess Lawrie: COVID-19 Vaccines Cause Inflammation in ‘Every Organ and Tissue of the Body’

“There’s a loophole that they’ve slipped through in the regulatory process, because most drugs require pharmacokinetic studies … And that has not been done with the COVID-19 vaccines,” says Dr. Tess Lawrie, co-founder of the World Council for Health.

Pharmacokinetics is the study of how a drug behaves in a patient’s body, how it distributes, and how long it takes to be cleared from the body. “Because they’ve been called vaccines … all these manufacturers have been required to do is to show that the product they inject gives an immune reaction, gets an immune response. They have not been required to show how it distributes around the body,” says Lawrie.

She argues that the COVID-19 injections are not actually vaccines, but are instead gene therapies. And they must be halted immediately, she says.

Myocarditis is just the tip of the iceberg. Inflammation is actually occurring not just in the heart, but “in every organ and tissue of the body,” Lawrie says.

In this episode, she breaks down the alarming signals that independent researchers have found, and what people can do if they are worried about their own health or the health of their loved ones.

Dr. Lawrie is also the director of The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd. Her Substack is called “A Better Way to Health.”


Interview trailer:

Watch the full interview:



Jan Jekielek:

Tess Lawrie, such a pleasure to have you on American thought leaders.

Dr. Tess Lawrie:

Thank you so much for having me.

Mr. Jekielek:

Tess, you have been one of the people on the forefront of advocating for early treatment of COVID. For starters, why don’t you just tell me about who you are, where do you come from, and why this is so important to you?

Dr. Lawrie:

Jan, I’m a medical doctor and scientist and I’ve been working as a guideline methodologist, which is actually a long word for someone who evaluates research, and then presents it in a recognized format, basically an evidence to decision framework to a panel of experts and other stakeholders to help them make a recommendation on whether to adopt an intervention or not, or a treatment or not, for a condition.

I’ve been doing this as an external consultant to the World Health Organization for the better part of 10 years as an external consultant. I and my company would be hired to do this work. We have no conflicts of interest. We had never worked for Big Pharma, and when COVID came along, it was clear that there was no evidence base to the strategies that were being promoted by the authorities, by the World Health Organization, and by governments.

I became interested in seeing how I could help and assist to promote evidence-based strategies. My opportunity came when I saw Dr. Pierre Kory’s testimony in front of the U.S. Senate asking that Ivermectin be used. I was fairly intrigued as to why a doctor should have to plead with politicians to use a safe old medicine. It’s been around for ages. So, I did a rapid review of the available evidence and it was clear that it really should be used, and there wasn’t much to lose by giving it a try.

Mr. Jekielek:

You’re also involved in a global organization and effort. Maybe you can tell me about that.

Dr. Lawrie:

After we’d done the review, the systematic review on Ivermectin, we also did what’s called the evidence to decision framework, and we presented this to the authorities, including your NIH and FDA via email, and we were totally ignored. The evidence was totally ignored, and then they came out with this nonsense about Ivermectin being a horse medicine and not being safe for humans. There was this huge social media campaign against Ivermectin and the notion of early treatment for COVID.

As we progressed through 2020, it was clear that the COVID vaccines were not safe, and they were not ready for mass rollout. There was clear evidence to me and my colleagues that lockdowns were not necessary, that masks were not necessary, that there was early treatment for COVID, and that the COVID injections were harmful and not ready for widespread use. We had to get those messages to the public.

So, we needed another platform. The World Council for Health is actually a grassroots organization. We are independent and ethical, doctors, scientists and lawyers, members of the public, activists, and now patients, who are informing the information that is shared. It’s not a World Health Organization type of centralized imposition of health guidance to anybody. It’s really facilitating discussion, conversation about what works, what doesn’t, how to get healthy, and not only that. We are empowering people to look at issues around freedom and sovereignty as well.

Mr. Jekielek:

When it comes to the COVID-19 genetic vaccines, what is the state of the evidence at this moment in terms of their efficacy, and also in terms of their safety?

Dr. Lawrie:

I’ve been monitoring the World Health Organization’s database since January 2021 in terms of the COVID vaccines. In fact, I started looking at it because of Ivermectin. I wanted to see how safe Ivermectin was historically. In the UK, they have what’s called the Yellow Card Scheme, and they are databases that record adverse events. They didn’t have a denominator. So, you can’t say, “10 per cent of people have an adverse reaction,” but they are a measure and they provide a safety signal, especially in the numbers that we are seeing.

It’s actually required by these authorities to do safety audits at least every two years, but in an emergency like we have with experimental injections being rolled out, you would hope that it would be more frequent. Currently, on the World Health Organization VigiAccess database, there are over four-and-a-half million reports of adverse reactions.

On our UK database, they have actually stopped updating it, but when we last looked in July, there were about 450,000 adverse reactions, aside from just those reports, which suggests that a safety signal is present. If you just look at the number of adverse reactions, for example, and the number of deaths, we have in the region of 40,000 deaths reported in association with the vaccines, while one recognizes that it’s not causal, and you can’t determine a causal relationship. The sheer numbers demand some evaluation, and a pause at the very least, or attention by the authorities. With the swine flu vaccination in the 1970s, it took 50 deaths for them to recall that product.

We have a pharmacovigilance report, I’ll just hold it up, which can be found on the website. It was done in June, so, it’s not the latest and up to date, but in that, based on the breadth of the data across the different databases, it looks at the VigiAccess World Health Organization database and the UK database. There’s really plenty of evidence to show that they should be recalled. We have at least 40,000 deaths reported across the different databases.

Mr. Jekielek:

There are a number of countries and states, at least one in the U.S. where the recommendation for young people and especially younger men, even up to age 39 in the case of Florida, where the genetic vaccination is not recommended anymore. This is directionally correct, but not the whole story.

Dr. Lawrie:

As with Florida, we see no vaccinations for the younger men between the age of 18 and 39. But in actual fact, it’s really not enough, because we are seeing harms across the age spectrum. All age groups are experiencing harms. It’s really not enough to say that the vaccines are safe for one group and not another. They are not fundamentally safe in their essence, and in the way they are designed.

If you look at how they are meant to work, they are not vaccines, and the reason why they have been approved so quickly is because they’ve been called vaccines. That means that they haven’t needed to go through or apparently they haven’t needed to go through approval. They’ve slipped through. There’s a loophole that they’ve slipped through in the regulatory process, because most drugs require pharmacokinetic studies, and the pharmacokinetic studies for vaccines include immunological studies.

Pharmacokinetics is how a drug behaves in the body, how it moves throughout the body, how long it takes to be cleared from the body, how it’s excreted from the body, and how it distributes in the body. That has not been done with the COVID-19 vaccines, because they’ve been called vaccines. If they had been called gene therapies, which is what they are, they would have required the biodistribution pharmacokinetics, as I’ve explained, and immunological studies.

What all these manufacturers have been required to do is to show that the product they inject gives an immune reaction. It gets an immune response. They have not been required to show how it distributes around the body. We know from a FOIA request from Japan by Dr. Byram Bridle, in Canada, that these injections accumulate in certain tissues in rats.

All we have is a little rat study to go on from 2020 that shows that the contents of these COVID-19 injections accumulate in the ovaries and in the liver and so on, but in high concentrations in the ovaries. We don’t actually know to what extent, because the animals were terminated after 48 hours. So, we have studies done in rats that were done for only 48 hours that showed alarming accumulation of COVID vaccines in ovaries and other sensitive tissues like bone marrow and liver and spleen and testes. Of course, and we’ve had nothing done further, and nothing done in human beings.

Mr. Jekielek:

You seem very definitive about saying these vaccines need to be paused for further research. This is essentially Dr. Aseem Malhotra’s position. Please explain to me the evidence that you’re seeing.

Dr. Lawrie:

It’s easy to explain the evidence that one is not seeing, because there never was evidence before they were rolled out to support their use. We didn’t have adequate animal studies. The phase one studies were rolled into the phase two studies without publishing results, and without sharing them both. The phase two studies were rolled into the phase three studies. The phase three studies, the control group was eliminated, and after a couple of months, the control group was given the active experimental treatment, and then it was just rolled out to millions and billions of people around the world.

We did an analysis of the UK database in May last year and we broke the data down by symptom and pathology group. We looked at bleeding and clotting. We looked at neurological adverse events. We looked at pain. We looked at reproductive issues. We looked at sensory, visual, nasal, taste, and all those sorts because these were the things that we were hearing anecdotally.

And when we looked at that, there was a huge preponderance of neurological disease. The other thing we looked at was immune system disease, autoimmunity infection, and inflammation. Those are the broad categories. When one looked at it like that, it became so clear that most of the deaths were due to bleeding, clotting, and ischemic, which is when a blood vessel gets blocked, and you don’t have perfusion to the tissue.

We are having diseases or conditions picked out and examined. For example, myocarditis has become something that’s very widely discussed, but the broader picture is that myocarditis is inflammation. That inflammation is happening in every organ and tissue of the body. It’s not just in the heart. In some people, it’s manifesting in the heart, but in others, it’s manifesting as vasculitis.

The blood vessels are inflamed. The gut’s inflamed. The liver’s inflamed. The lung’s inflamed, as well as the brain. We are seeing the same pathology throughout, but obviously, if it happens in the heart, it’s very easy to detect. Joints as well. We’re seeing lots of arthritis and joint issues. It’s more when you’re looking at the side effects. When you break it down like that, you can see the pattern. It’s inflammation. It’s clotting. What struck us when we looked at the UK data was that there was clotting in all sorts of vessels.

It’s not just in brain, because there had been some discussion early on about blood clots in the brain and we were assured that it was very rare. But in actual fact, blood clots were happening all over. When you looked at the database, there were blood clots in large vessels like the aorta, which is fairly rare, and the spleen and the liver and right down to the peripheries.

So, the pathology is systemic. It’s affecting the whole body, because it’s the spike protein has been made in all and any cells, certainly not just in the arm. I just wanted to say this about the autoimmune stuff we’re seeing. It’s not just the inflammation we’re seeing, because we’re also seeing a lot of autoimmune disease. That just makes sense because your cells are making a spike protein, and then your body is making the antibodies to attack your own cells.

Then, the other thing is, because the immune system is so busy fighting this foreign spike protein, you also have a lot of latent infections, herpes, Epstein-Barr, and shingles popping up, because the immune system is suppressed, not boosted. So, these are the patterns of disease that one is seeing.

It’s very important for pregnant women and women who wishing to become pregnant also to realize that there were no studies done on pregnant animals, let alone pregnant woman, to determine whether the COVID vaccines are safe. There are many mechanisms of action to support what we are seeing on the databases, which is a lot of miscarriages, fetal morbidity, a lot of deaths, and a lot of fertility issues. One of the reasons for this is that the spike protein is similar to a placental protein.

If your body is making antibodies to the spike protein, your body could be making antibodies to the placental protein. It might make it difficult to maintain a pregnancy. If you are wanting to become pregnant, it would be best not to take the COVID vaccine, because you don’t want to have antibodies to your placenta, to the placenta that you make.

The other thing is to remember that in the rat studies that were done by Pfizer and that the FOIA request revealed in from Japan, there’s a concentration of these vaccine product in the ovaries and the testes. You only have a given number of eggs when you’re born as a woman. If you are going to have antibodies being made too, and you’re going to have vaccine contents in the ovaries, is that going to lead to scarring? Is it going to affect fertility? We don’t know. If we don’t know, we shouldn’t take the product.

Mr. Jekielek:

A lot of this comes down to it being a risk-benefit calculation. What you’re outlining to me here is that there is a lot of risk that is in many cases is still yet untested, and the benefit, especially to younger people, is minimal, as I understand it.

Dr. Lawrie:

Yes. It doesn’t seem to really be a risk-benefit relationship. It seems to be a risk-risk relationship. It doesn’t seem to be a benefit to these injections. Why on earth if this COVID injection is so effective do we have to take them so frequently? They don’t work. The benefit is not there. The risks are tremendous and are being revealed every day.

What we really need now is to focus on alerting the public to not taking any more jabs and helping those people who have been harmed, and also examining these databases to see what we can expect, because we have no long-term data. We’ve only been giving these shots for two years. What can we expect to see in 3, 4, 5, 10 years time? This is what we need to be looking at.

Mr. Jekielek:

You’re saying that there is a global coordinated effort in terms of the rollout, or in terms of the policies or guidelines. Can you expand on that and explain what you’re seeing?

Dr. Lawrie:

When I started on this journey, the last two years, like many, I didn’t have the big picture. I would say there have been a lot of pieces. It’s almost like a puzzle coming together. Because obviously, originally, the questions were on what basis was COVID a pandemic? It didn’t seem like it had the basis to declare it a pandemic in the first place, with the lockdowns and these draconian measures, the masking, and all of that.

Nothing really made sense, and many people are probably still struggling with that sense-making thing. Things started to fall into place for me when I became aware of the coordinated corruption behind the suppression of Ivermectin, and the power the pharmaceutical companies had over the journals. Because we obviously tried in the early part of 2021 to get publications out on Ivermectin. We saw the publications being suppressed, and authors being discredited.

Whereas if you had a negative study on Ivermectin, it would get published in a top journal like JAMA. But then, the World Health Organization came out with this pandemic treaty, and then things started to fall into place. In the background, one had the World Economic Forum speaking about its plans for humanity in terms of being chipped and surveilled and all of that.

The big picture basically is that the World Health Organization is a controlled organization. It’s controlled by corporate influence and interest, Chinese Communist Party influence, and Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab. This pandemic treaty, which they’ve drafted and they’re planning to or trying to get countries to sign on to involves the World Health Organization declaring and determining what constitutes a pandemic.

They have in mind we’re going to have a number of pandemics. Even though pandemics are generally terribly rare, and they’ve changed the definition to accommodate a series of pandemics that they anticipate. Then, once they’ve declared the pandemic, they get to decide how it gets managed. They get to decide how the quarantine measures look, how many of these 100-day vaccines people need to take, who gets those contracts to develop the vaccines, and then how the measures are enforced.

This treaty is being prepared alongside amendments to the international health regulations. Now, the amendments to the International Health Regulations were first drafted in 2005. In May 2022, there was a U.S. initiative to change 13 of the amendments to the International Health Regulations of 2005. One of those amendments is to give the Director General of the World Health Organization the power to declare an actual or potential health emergency.

So, you can imagine that the enormous power that has that gives a single man. Once this health emergency potentially would be declared, governments would have 48 hours to decide or accept the offer of collaboration by the World Health Organization. If they did not wish to collaborate with the World Health Organization, they would have to explain their reasons why. They’d have to give a rationale as to why they didn’t want to accept this collaboration.

Those are just a couple of the things. The other thing is these documents facilitate proactive surveillance of potential actual health emergencies. You can see, there would be a system that is set up with surveillance, not only of external threats, but of genetic data—this is a new phrase that’s been added— and also the digital passports.

It is digital data that would be with or in all of us. It very much seems that the World Health Organization is one of many tools that is being used by the globalists to formalize their control and this aim to have a one world government and a one health system. People say that they can’t get their head around it. They think, “This must be a conspiracy.” But it is a conspiracy certainly, and most people seem to be unaware.

Mr. Jekielek:

This is one of the themes I’ve noticed over the last few years. There have been all sorts of terms that have been redefined. You also mentioned the term vaccine has been redefined. What other terms have been redefined?

Dr. Lawrie:

Pandemic used to be an infection that caused a lot of deaths. Now, it’s just an infection, a new bug going around. You can imagine the implication of that. “There’s a new bug going around. Everybody go home, stay home, lock yourselves away, and wear a mask until we say it’s safe to come out.” Herd immunity has been redefined. It used to be that herd immunity was something that could occur naturally.

Now, it’s being associated with vaccination only. I promise that earlier I would tell you a bit more about how these vaccines work and why they are not vaccines as we know them. This is because a traditional vaccine uses a protein or antigen and it’s injected into the arm muscle. Your body responds to it with antibodies and T-cells, and then you have immunity.

But with these new types of vaccines, if we’re going to call them vaccines, they are actually gene therapies. They used to be investigated for cancer. That was how they were originally intended. It contains a gene. A gene is like a recipe, and once in the body, it uses the body’s materials and mechanisms to make the product.

This injection or substance goes into the arm muscle, but it circulates within the bloodstream very quickly within hours and days. Then, this gene gets into the cells of the body, the lining of the blood vessels and the tissues. Then, it uses the cell’s mechanisms or machinery to make spike protein. The theory is that your body then makes antibodies to the spike protein, but the antibodies are in your cells.

Your body makes antibodies to your own cells that are containing the spike protein, and this sets up an inflammatory reaction. It’s like COVID in a way, in the sense that the spike protein is a product from COVID. We know that with COVID, you can get multisystem inflammation and clotting if you don’t treat it early, but these vaccines give you trillions of copies of this recipe.

You’re making much more spike protein, or you may be making much more than you would make with getting COVID. Also, it keeps making it. We don’t know how long it takes. Obviously, it’s going to differ from person to person, but the drug companies have not done the studies and said the contents of these injections and their products are cleared within X number of days, months, or years.

All of these questions are unanswered, and it seems as if it’s been left up to independent scientists to have to explore them and reveal them. In actual fact, we have this weird situation where the drug companies are saying, “Here’s our product.”

The regulatory authorities are saying, “Thank you very much,” and signing off on the thing, and it’s up to the independent doctors and scientists and the public to prove that the drug’s not safe, instead of the other way around. The pharmaceutical companies should be proving that their product is safe, and they are not.

Mr. Jekielek:

What is the World Council for Health? How big is the organization?

Dr. Lawrie:

We have 170 or more organizations in 45 countries. Some of them are really small organizations with a lot of output. Some of them are large organizations and with international groups. We don’t charge groups to be members with us. It’s a coalition, so, everybody’s autonomous. It’s not as if there’s a central imposition. What we do ask though is that the groups subscribe to a better way of doing things and that is our mission.

Really, our mission is to empower them in their countries with the resources they need to inform their leaders, and to inform the public. Ultimately, our aim is to decentralize responsibility for health to our country partners, to countries, to communities, and to the individual. Our goal is really for everyone to be their own council for health, so they don’t need to outsource their decision making to corrupt authorities.

Mr. Jekielek:

How did you come up with your positions in this umbrella or meta-organization?

Dr. Lawrie:

We have expert committees. We have a science and medical committee. We have a law and activism committee. We have an ethics committee. We have a youth committee and we have a mind health committee and these committees meet weekly. They discuss current affairs, and their feedback to us.

One of our key, mission documents is called the 7 Principles of a Better Way, or the Better Way Charter, and this document was formulated. It was a key output of our meeting. In May, we had an in-person conference in Bath called the Better Way Conference. Actually, I’ve got a little leaflet here that we share. It’s really very simple.

The route out of the current predicament is really changing the way we show up in the world. Number one is we act in honor and we do no harm. Now, that’s usually the reserve of what we demand of doctors, but everybody else has to act in honor and do no harm. Everybody needs to try their best to do no harm, to do no harm to others and to themselves.

We are free and we have free will. We take responsibility for our lives and our health and our choices. We are part of nature. We tend to forget that, especially when we live in cities, which are concretized, and we have all this tech around us.

Spirituality is absolutely integral to our wellbeing, and many people, they disregard that idea, but we actually thrive when our lives have conscious meaning and purpose. If you haven’t got a good reason to wake up, you tend to feel very disconnected and isolated. So, we thrive together. We actually like diversity and we don’t need to name it and categorize it and break it down. We value different perspectives.

We’re being conditioned that you have to take a position. You have to choose one or the other. You have to be pro-vax or anti-vax. It just seems all the time we’re forced to take a position, when in actual fact, you don’t have to take a position. We actually like each other. We like having discussions and conversations, and that’s how we refine our knowledge and our wisdom.

Number seven, the last one, is that we use technology with discernment. Tech is great, but we need to use it for the benefit of people in the planet. There is a footnote and that is we don’t tolerate the violation of our inalienable rights and freedoms, and our freedom of speech and travel.

Mr. Jekielek:

What has been the response to the work of you and your organization countries and these multilateral health authorities?