Dr. John O’Malley: About Evolving Health

Dr. John O’Malley joins us from New Zealand to introduce Evolving Health, an affiliate organization to the World Council for Health.

Dr. John O’Malley has been investigating better ways to look at health and wellbeing for over thirty years.

Evolving Health is passionate about supporting its patients in making powerful lifestyle changes, understanding alternatives to care, and becoming active participants and their own treatment.

This is an edited segment from the weekly live General Assembly meeting on January 3, 2022. The full meeting can be viewed here.

This clip is also available on Rumble and Odysee.

Here’s what WCH members, staff, and coalition partners are saying about Dr. O’Malley’s presentation:

“Amazing presentation John – I’m loving your analytical mind, something grossly missing amongst our colleagues who are aligning with the narrative. Keep up the good work ✊????” -Nathi Mdladla

“Absolutely agree with Nathi, brilliant, analytical mind John!!! great summary of what is happening…” -Dr. Maria Hubmer-Mogg, AUT

“Interesting presentation. Applying models to each of our countries could be useful.” -Shabnam Palesa Mohamed

“Excellent presentation, John! I particularly like the distinction between correct and true statements, as that is what people encounter on a daily basis.” -Michael Alexander

“Dear John, You gave such an excellent and sound analysis of the world situation, and the specific situation here in New Zealand. Thank you so much.” -Dr Rene de Monchy, Tauranga

[00:00:00] [00:00:30] Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: We’re going to be talking to Dr. John O’Malley. He’s from New Zealand, from an organization called Evolving Health. [00:00:38] And let’s tell you a little bit about Dr. John O’Malley. [00:00:42] Dr. John, O’Malley has been in practice over 30 years. He’s an internationally certified chiropractic sports practitioner and is a fellow of the Royal college of chiropractic. John is published in the areas of chiropractic and medical anthropology, and he’s focused and giving the profession new insights into how to expand chiropractic practice. [00:01:06] John’s academic area of interest is the way its clinical model distort deception. Since the middle of last year, he’s changed his focus to concentrate on developing ways to interpret the motivations behind the various plays that make up the discordant symphony of action that is the COVID response. [00:01:24] John is going to present a short PowerPoint on two classical philosophical tools that can work as a framework to deconstructing and thereby anticipating government and industry player actions. Dr. John O’Malley you’re warmly. Welcome. The mic is yours. [00:01:40] Dr. John O’Malley: Thank you very much, Shabnam. [00:01:42] Okay. What this is about is making sense at all. If we go to currently what we look at, a lot of people say it just doesn’t make sense. Why would you, for instance, ignore them. [00:01:52] They’re the precepts of standard biology and immunology by vaccinating in the middle of a pandemic, for instance. Why are we promoting just the vaccines? We’re putting children at risk, to protect the elderly, delaying critical treatment. Spending a huge amount of money on a questionable program. Uncritical support for the whole process from the media. [00:02:13] This I think is a really important point. Ignoring the science in favor of supporting scientific ideology. I’m going to look at four different tools that turn up in classical philosophy. [00:02:24] Aristotle’s four causes. Dialectics, which is how the push and pull of two different ideas. How one gets strength over the other and ends up being the dominant idea and the problem of truth and correctness. Most of us think of something that is correct as being truth. In fact, a deeper look at that actually shows that near correctness can in fact hide what is behind it. [00:02:47] And then I want to look at the problem of form verse content. This is a bridge actually in South Korea that we’re looking at that look pretty good right until it collapsed and ended up in the water. It had the form, but clearly not the content. So if we look at Aristotle’s four causes, this is an idea that’s been around for two and a half thousand years, and it is still totally valid today. [00:03:06] In fact, it’s quite illuminating and we’re looking at what’s going on in the dynamics between the various players in pandemic response. So we start the material cause. In the case of our table, it’s the wood. But before you got to the cabinet, to make the table, you’ll go this is what I would want it to look like. [00:03:25] So that was the formal cause, the plan. The efficient cause is the, cabinet maker and the cabinet maker’s tools. And of course the purpose, the reason we made it as the final cause. Now Aristotle said that particularly in relation to almost all human activity, you will find these four causes and an interplay between them. [00:03:43] So the pharmaceutical companies pandemic response, right? The material cause is probably our legislature and the other players. But we’re just looking at this one for the moment. So we look at the legislature, how does the legislature how did we end up with that decision to go that way? My suspicion is a group of people at the very top of it all said, this is an ideal opportunity to make a truckload of money. [00:04:09] And they got together and we look at the SARS 2003 epidemic. There was an attempt then to declare a pandemic, but it never succeeded. And part of the reason it didn’t succeed was that an independent media asked good critical questions. And as a consequence of the world health organization denied about it being a pandemic. [00:04:28] And then they pulled, it, pulled the plug on it by now I think the people who had done the planning realized that if you are not controlling the narrative, then there’s a very reasonable chance that you won’t get the outcome you want. So the formal cause, the efficient cause in the case of New Zealand, we had lockdowns, we had a special acts passed so that the government could impose lockdowns, mandates, abolish the bill of rights. [00:04:53] Like in New Zealand, it is not legal for someone to have an experimental treatment. It is not legal to have some medication against their will, but if you take away a person’s right to work, I haven’t worked since the 15th of January when my profession became mandated. And then in effect, you are using collusion and to do that, they had to abolish the bill of rights. [00:05:14] They didn’t abolish it. They simply passed a bill to supersede it. And the final cause is I don’t think anyone would look at that and say that Pfizer is in it primarily for the love of humanity. And so when you’re looking at it, the final cause is of course the cash. Now, the four causes, there’s a relationship between them and that’s worth looking at. [00:05:33] So we’ll start with the final cause because that actually determines how the others are set. So then we’ve got the efficient cause, material cause and the formal cause. This is old fashioned language, so I’ll change it a bit. So I was to make it a little more accessible to people. So the final objective, right? [00:05:49] The plan, the process of manipulation, and the object of manipulation. Now all of these three are all focused on getting the final objective. This is just classical philosophical discussion, but they also relate to each other, depending on the object, that depends on the plan, the process, it depends on the object as well, and that’s therefore modifies the plan, but always, [00:06:13] always that is the final focus. So how does pharma go about it? So we start with the plan, establish an argument for vaccination, make sure that the media promoted, squash all opposition and just create a competing options. Because if you’re going to put one idea forward with the idea of making a lot of money, you can’t have someone getting in the road and you do actually need the public on side. [00:06:37] If you can’t buy the politicians, then intimidate them. This was done in New Zealand. This was done by using medical experts within our equivalent of Anthony Fauci, who is Ashley Bloomfield. He and a group of epidemiologists, people that we’d never heard of it before, but are now like nightly rockstars on the television news, telling us just how dreadful this thing is. [00:07:00] And one statistic that hit me is we’re roughly 5 million people. Let’s say for the sake of mathematics, we live a hundred years. And we’ll say this 50 weeks in a year, that means effectively a thousand people die a week to maintain that statistic. Right now, we got really excited around about 49 [00:07:19] people have died from the infection. And so in terms of controlling the narrative. We are not seeing any information about who those people are. We don’t know what their obesity status is. We don’t know their age and we don’t know what co-morbidities that we’re suffering from. But the language used by the media is very clear. [00:07:37] They talk about the deadly Delta variants. They talk about, the highly infectious Omnicron variant. And all of that is about scaring the population. If we look at that, if we look at say the English philosopher, John Stuart Mill on the question of the tyranny of the majority, he said the tyranny of the majority is far more dangerous than the tyranny of government because an uninformed majority can act preciously and can suppress all opposition. [00:08:05] And we saw that in in Nazi Germany, the key element was just to convince the average German the Jews were dangerous and suddenly it was legitimate to lock them up in camp and deny them human rights and ultimately eliminate them. Part of the plan, part of the action behind the plan was to scare the population. And who was the targets? [00:08:22] The government, the media, and of course the populace, because without the populace, you don’t have the government. How did you get the media involved? A bit of it was to do with how the circumstances evolved. We had a situation here where the media in New Zealand. If you’ve locked down all economics, then what’s the point of advertising on television. [00:08:41] So the media basically ran out of money and the government said look, we’ll fund you and you run our media campaign. You will promote our idea of what needs to be done. And so that part of that was just straight advertisement, but of course it came through in the journalism, and I use the word journalism very loosely. [00:08:59] If we talk about endangered species in New Zealand, we have a few and the journalist has to be high on the endangered species list because they’ve been pretty much replaced by cooperative sycophants, running the line. I don’t watch the news anymore. I haven’t watched it for months now, but what is the final purpose, to safely make obscene amounts of money. [00:09:18] And I think it’s quite critical to understand that safely is a key component to this. There’s no point in making money if they take it all off of you, which is why all of the deals done between governments and pharma have been kept confidential. And have I suspect very high penalty clauses on them, if there’s any disclosure. [00:09:38] And that also, probably there would be other parts to those agreements. This is purely speculative on my part, but things like, for instance, you will not allow this type of treatment to interfere with it. And it will be justified in terms of things like we need to know the scientific outcome and if you allow this to happen, we won’t know really whether or not the vaccine probably worked. [00:09:58] And so you’ll be interfering with our science. And so these are the sort of justifications which brings us nicely into the next component. Dialectics. Started with Plato hit its Zenith with the work of Hagle at the end of the 18 hundreds, 19th century. And it starts with this argument that there is an idea or an objective called the Thesis. [00:10:19] And against this. And this can happen both within your own mind. That’s going to happen within an academic debate or it can happen within the political system, but you have it comes up against some alternative idea or objective the antithesis and the interaction of the two. One modifies the other to other the synthesis. [00:10:37] But when looking at this, it is really critical to remember the importance of power, particularly when you’re not looking at it from the perspective of truth, but from the perspective of attempting to create outcomes. So we go back to Aristotle’s four causes. The outcome, being to get the vaccination before everybody and get everybody vaccinated. [00:10:57] And my truck loads of money safely. By safely, I don’t mean safe for the public. Safe for the people making truck loads of money, So the dialectical power relationship, when we start the larger objective, a thesis that is powerfully supportive. And so we look here, at the idea that the media has strongly promoted this vaccination campaign worldwide, right? [00:11:16] But then it comes up against an antithesis which comes up against an alternative idea the antithesis, which has relatively little power. Then the synthesis pretty much reflects that power relationships. It will largely go against one side versus the other. And this, these could equally be swapped into this. [00:11:33] This could be a very powerful argument and therefore supplants the thesis. Let’s see how that relates to our situation. Their thesis, this disease will kill millions. The results from this statistics support this. And in the media, when we looked at the early stages of the pandemic in Brazil, the UK and the US we did in fact, see large numbers of deaths. [00:11:57] And these were probably a combination of the speed with which the moved and the failure of governments to engage in appropriate infrastructure. But there were also certain population characteristics of those countries that made them more vulnerable. One would be, I think, morbid obesity and overall general ill health. [00:12:16] And. So this did actually cause that and therefore it became easy for the media to promote the idea that the government, if they failed to act will have blood on their hands. Of course, vaccinate children. There’s no justification for that, but this language can be used to push it. The media exclusively promotes this agenda. [00:12:37] Our antithesis, we look at here, someone like Robert Malone and others call this false science and the science if looked at objectively supports them. And how did the media handle that? Robert Malone’s Twitter account is canceled. And then we get to understand that more of this, we have to understand the superstructure of the relationships the social media is controlled largley by a few players and those players have made these public companies and those companies have been bought up by large investment companies that have a very broad reach. If we look at groups like BlackRock and Vanguard, they have their fingers in just about every pie. And so the directors of those companies realized that keeping the key shareholders happy is what keeps them in a job. [00:13:21] So the synthesis of all, this is the popular support for vaccinating, even though the facts suggest it is dangerous and useless, so dangerous and useless down here, but a very strong voice for here. And that’s where the popular support comes in and went back to John Stuart Mill’s idea that a population that strongly pushes an idea. [00:13:41] A majority, the strongly pushes an idea is decided to be dangerous, particularly if that population is uninformed. So Pharma 1, Malone 0. The problem of truth and correctness. This is our third philosophical appointment going to look at most of us think of a correct statement as being true, which is therefore the truth. [00:14:01] If we take that further and we use an example here, and we said, fire engines are red, for the sake of our discussion, we will assume that all fire engines are red and you got, is that true? That’s the truth, but let’s consider another proposition. And that is the fire engines are appliances that move personnel, equipment and retardant to fires for the purposes of extinguishing them. [00:14:24] Right? Incidentally, they’re often red. The point of it is that when we are looking at how we accept truth, we have reduced truth to these points of correctness and we’ve failed to look at what is the essence. This is actually out of Martin Heidegger’s the question concerning technology written in the early fifties. The way nature presents itself, can indeed permit, correct determinations, but precisely through these successes, the danger may remain that in the midst of all, that is correct. [00:14:56] The truth will withdraw. So this is about focus. If we create an argument and we put the focus on a point, we, in fact, in that narrow view, lose all the periphery and facts, maybe the essence. So for both Aristotle and Heidegger, truth is the essence of the thing. Not just correct statement about aspects of it. [00:15:16] We see this turning up totally in this debate so in the pandemic correctness with alpha and perhaps Delta ICU deaths were reduced by vaccination. I think there’s reasonable data to support that argument, but when the focus is totally put onto that, and therefore, when this is then used as a justification to vaccinate children who are at no risk and it is also questionable whether or not the vaccine will have any real impact in with emerging [00:15:43] variants. We see this already with Omicron, but then we look at the essence truth. These are the people, the essence behind it, the genuine truth. These are the things that are actually ignored because of that process of truth and correctness, and that brings me to the last of our points, the issue of form versus content. [00:16:03] Now, I just want to show this is the Sampoong department store. It’s in South Korea, right? It was meant to have 80 centimeter columns that were actually 60 centimeters. It was meant to have 16 bars in each column. They had on the 8. The concrete should have been made with fresh water and with a high grade was made with salt water and was on a low grade. [00:16:23] The owner changed the design at one point because it was going to be originally a residential building, but he decided he’d rather have a department store and needed to put an escalator. So that impacted on the columns. And that was the consequence: it collapsed killing 502 people. And today, if you don’t commit a crime while let’s do it in Korea, he got eight years for that. [00:16:42] If he’d been in Texas, it had been executed 503 times. Form versus content, where does it come from? We naturally accept that form effects content, and that’s because our major evolutionary exposure to it has been in the form of nature. This is this little beasty is the Asian Hornets. And I’ve been chased off the end of the pier in Hawaii by one of these things, jumping 30 feet into the water look like a better option. They are about the size of your thumb. Positively fierce. Now in science, form should reflect content. When you’re doing scientific research, the content behind it should be good. We are seeing a dialectical debate now within the journals between what will and won’t be published. [00:17:24] And this was just raised by Phil. Now we go into the role of media to dig into the form and see the content that’s what it should be doing. And in fact, that’s what happened in the SARS 2003 epidemic. Where they looked at it and said it’s not really any epidemic. It hasn’t affected that many people. [00:17:41] And so as a consequence, Pharma didn’t manage to get to promote the idea out there that this was going to need a vaccination program and the opportunity to make money was lost. So when the four causes, when they came up for another opportunity, they said the next time this one arises, we better have the world health organization under their control. [00:18:03] And we need to make sure that the media is working with us rather than doing its job. And propaganda is the deliberate distortion of form to create an illusion about content. So let’s have a look at the players that’s their champ, he’s the head, Elba Borla, he’s the head of Pfizer on the eye watering salary. [00:18:22] These are two of new Zealand’s media personalities. This is Ashley Bloomfield. He is our equivalent of Tony Fauci. And this is our beloved prime minister who said, “of course the unvaccinated will be discriminated against”. Now, if we go to the next thing and we look at how this works, and we just say, look at the final objective, rather than go through the whole process. [00:18:44] You can see how the dialect that truth and correctness, form and content come into it. But if we look at the final objective, his final objective is to make a lot of money for his company. Their final objective is to keep a job because media. Basically lost its income with the pandemic establishing and also with media advertising income has moved away from things like press and television and radio to the internet. [00:19:11] And so the big internet players are taking the coin and paying no tax on it. His concern was that for years he had looked at the question of our health infrastructure and his problem was that there was going to be a whole lot of potentially dead people. If we look at New Zealand, the risk to most of the population isn’t that bad, but in one particular part of Oakland, we have a very high Polynesian population on average [00:19:38] they are very poor health outcomes because they’re largely poor people. And as we know, one of the biggest determinants of health outcomes is poverty. You’ve got overcrowding, which means viral loads within households should append the epidemic. Movement will be much higher. And there are Polynesian population living in a temporate country, which means rugging up, they’re staying inside and they’re avoiding the sun because it’s cold out here. [00:20:02] And so we are potentially looking at low vitamin D levels. So you put all those together and you actually do have a bit of a perfect storm in that part of the country. He was advising the prime minister and the prime minister advise them. How they’re going to put the idea, did a deal with this guy, which is secret and he had the whole thing come out and we see a turning up as those three areas. [00:20:25] I just want to finish off with the new children’s commissioner because my area of personal activism has been along the lines of trying to get the children’s commissioner to do their job. The previous one, I haven’t, that’s one that’s just newly appointed and I haven’t yet worked with her. But under the children’s commissioners act, the children’s commissioner must put children’s welfare first must take into account the views of children, which is quite interesting because one of the campaigns we are pushing is to get [00:20:53] in contact with children who have had a vaccine injury and have them ask the commissioner to investigate. That way we can sidestep the medical players. Now, the commissioner will, I suspect as did the previous commissioner, attempt to step outside her area of responsibility. When I first raised it with her predecessor, I said, why are we promoting this idea of an experimental vaccine to children, the healthy children, who are largely at absolutely no risk from the virus. Denying them the opportunity to get that native response, which will give them a far more lasting and durable immune response. [00:21:31] And they came back with the argument that there’s two things, reasons we’re doing it. We’re concerned about this dreadful condition called long COVID. And also we see children within the context of family. And so therefore protecting the rest of the family is important. That second argument is [00:21:48] clearly rubbish because you could use exactly the same argument to have them defend the beaches against an invading army. Or you could use the same argument to send them down a coal mine to support family incomes. In both cases, the more appropriate things to have a proper standing only of adults and to pay everyone a reasonable wage. [00:22:07] So you can live off the parents’ wages and you don’t have to deal with the kids. At the same thing, you need a proper health system and you need to be engaging in other activities that will protect the family, not vaccinating children. So we are going to push this further. They also must take into account the UN rights of the child. [00:22:23] And one of those, one of those, those rights talk around things like access to health, access to education. So if we’re talking about mandates as a prerequisite to going to school, we’re going to see that as a going to be challenged. And also, one of the advantage of us taking on the children’s commission of this is the bill of rights is that the children’s commissioners act cannot be as easily ignored. [00:22:46] So what I do want to do is I actually wanted to get a hold of Tess because I’d like to be able to touch base with Robert Malone. Do all the background work, write up the documentation and all of that, but I’d love him to seem to lift to the children’s commissioner. And perhaps some of the other key players in In that group to put the children’s commissioner on notice and the allow an alternative voice to the ones coming only for the ministry of health. [00:23:12] Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: Thanks very much to Dr. John O’Malley for that. Very interesting analytical presentation that our audience, and affiliates very much enjoyed. And if you could perhaps engage with some of them in the chat section of the comments, we’d really appreciate that. [00:23:26] And of course our marketing and communications team is brilliant. They’re also going to share your slides in your presentations. If people want to have a closer look and try and apply those models, in your own country, you’re very welcome to do so, but thank you very much for your contribution and for your time. [00:23:40]