Why People Don't Want To 'Work' Anymore


Set Your Pulse: Take a breath. Turn your attention to your body and release any tension. Breathe slowly into the area of your heart for 60 seconds, focusing on feeling a sense of ease. Stay connected to your body as you read. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Last time I wrote about the increasing mental health crisis happening around the world. I didn’t write it to bring about negativity but more so to bring awareness to the reality of our current moment. Awareness is the first step toward any change.

That piece coupled with a video I did the other day on a collectively felt sense of meaninglessness, I believe these two subjects go hand in hand.

Tied in with both of those subjects is the decade-over-decade increase in the difficulty of surviving financially in our modern world.

More and more younger people have been struggling to buy a home and make ends meet due to the high cost of living and stagnating wages. For many, affording necessities in life has become difficult despite working 40-60 hours per week.

This reality recently drove a viral TikTok video that highlights the frustration younger generations feel and the misconceptions associated with their position.

Before you watch it, conversations I have with people about this issue don’t just exist in the Gen Z and Millenial age group. I’ve spoken to people in their 50s and 60s who have also become completely disenfranchised about the state of work.

Also, Quiet Quitting is a trend on the rise. Simply put, people are going to work and doing the bare minimum to stay employed at greater and greater rates. Gallup estimates that in the US 50% of employees have Quiet Quit and that it’s an increasing crisis. In Japan, 94% of employees report being disengaged at work.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Gallup blames the trend on poor management. This is where humans really have to start waking up and thinking bigger in my opinion, more on this shortly.

Alright, let’s get to the video.

She makes many good points, and if we take her words to heart, clearly she isn’t lazy and trying to ‘not work.’ She is passionate about her work but sees the gap between salary and the reality of living a comfortable life. She also sees the value in work… just not like how it is today.

Not surprisingly, many have agreed with her while many have attacked her. Let’s explore why she might feel this way about life and work. (Note: There is an element that sometimes people can judge, hate, and avoid work so much that it’s a self sabotage situation, I talk about that here.)

  1. She and the generation she represents, even people like her from other generations, are just lazy or may even grow out of this idea.

  2. She’s lying about enjoying her job and if she were to quit and do something she likes she’d find just enough satisfaction to not care about the fact that she can’t afford to do anything beyond eat, have shelter, and enjoy a few things.

  3. Maybe she’s just permanently unhappy and therefore no matter what she does, she will find a way to frame it as negative and bad.

  4. From a position of common sense and orienting to our current environment, this girl realizes the losing game she is part of and is making the observation that this isn’t a reasonable game to play.

As an extension to number 4, the fact that multiple generations of people not only realize how rigged the game is, don’t want to play the game AND are saying something about it provides an evolutionary pressure for society to address it.

The key is, can we listen vs. sitting in judgment?

Oddly, reaction videos are all the craze on YouTube these days. When people make videos like hers or when something happens, creators turn on their cameras and watch the video while simultaneously reacting to it.

Usually, creators reacting to videos like this from Gen Z’ers are well off themselves or conservatives. Their career often stems around having a ‘hot take,’ creating polarity, and leaning into drama so their content can get a lot of views and thus pay their bills.

Sadly, this dynamic in content creation is often missed by the user, not realizing that the host of the video says what they say primarily because they know it will make them money even if it’s not entirely what they think.

Further, we never get to the bottom of what people bring forth because we are skipping the step of coming to the table in good faith and empathizing with each other’s position. Instead, we get a culture stuck in a debating/debunking/warring mindset. Good luck getting good faith conversation to go viral when most out there are focused on hi-jacking your attention.

  1. ‘Working’ is Important – Being part of something, contributing to something, living in a community and having a role, all add meaning and purpose to life.

    Being a creative, productive person is a necessity for human well-being, even if only for a few hours a day. No one is saying let’s sit around and do nothing all day. But should we have to work 40 or 50 hours a week to simply survive? No, that is the result of poor system design. We have advanced our technology incredibly to provide the necessities of life yet we work more than we ever have. Doesn’t something seem wrong there?

    Our cultural idea of needing to work 40 hours a week for most of our lives ‘just to be a contributor’ is rather warped. Many cultures have thrived working a few hours a day, yet look at us – working constantly yet experiencing mental illness, poor health, and meaninglessness at massive rates.

    It would benefit us to have a deeper look at WHY our society is currently producing results no one wants all while destroying our environment and people. Too many discussions about this topic think small and are limited to lazy questions from system protectors or political ideologies. This won’t get us to the root of the issue and why people feel the way they do.

  2. Cost of Living is Too High, But Why? – I’m 36, when my parents were my age one worked a mid-level job in corporate and the other a grocery store. They made enough to buy a fairly big house near Toronto, pay off the mortgage by 40 and raise two kids. These days, they’d need to make $100,000+ each just to buy the same house, and forget about paying off the mortgage by 40. Even when interest rates were 22% back then, things were a lot easier.

    Often, when I talk about mortgage rates with older generations, and how it is becoming hard to afford homes, they say “Back in my day rates were 18% – 22%.” The sense that people aren’t listening to what is being said is palatable. We’re not thinking clearly.

    In 1945 a US citizen dedicated on average 25% of his salary to pay rent/mortgage. In 2019 it was 47%. It’s higher now. And of course in that time interest rates have come down dramatically. Plain and simple, the cost of living has risen incredibly and wages didn’t climb at anywhere near the same rate.

    This is a losing game, and only set to get worse given the path we’re on. That said, this is what anyone should expect in a system driven by fractional reserve banking. When we understand the design of our system, we understand this isn’t about one political view or another, it’s about bad system design. We have to think deeper.

  3. Evolutionary Pressure – As our society declines more and more, younger people who look ahead to their future see something undesirable. The life their parents lived is no longer possible and they see the game is rigged. They aren’t lazy, they are demoralized.

    A left hemisphere reductionist and othering view, who sees humans as cogs in a system might say “Nah, people are lazy. Grow up. Things are fine.” Yet when we take a step back and include a sense of something sacred, our entire perspective changes. Why are we seeing life and merely working to uphold a rigged economy? Is this really all we are capable of? Why are we always trying to protect societal design producing results we don’t like? Do we realize we made all this up and it can be different?

    Sure, there are aspects of younger generations that I think are immature too, we’ve all been through it, but at the same time, younger people are not buying the rigged game and thus are not dying to play it. They are right. They are smart to speak up.

    And to tie things back to meaninglessness and mental health issues, I think we’re seeing now how this all ties into our current moment. People don’t thrive playing a losing game where basic needs are gated behind 100 foot walls.

    Movements toward system redesign have been around for many many decades. It’s not a new idea to discuss how rigged, limiting, and problematic our existing societal design is, but more people are waking up to it now.

    When I spoke about this stuff in 2009 and 2010, most people laughed at me thinking I was nuts. Now, they mostly agree with me. We’re on fertile ground for something new. For a while, we’ll likely live feeling and sensing the possibility of a new society while living in the old. Feeling that we’re not sure we quite belong to a visible society entirely.

    This is the Metacrisis. This is the shift in consciousness as I’ve always called it. It’s an evolutionary pressure that begs us to look deeper than political ideology and hot takes on why someone we don’t agree with is wrong. It begs us to re-taste the sacred. To examine what it means to be human and why we’re here.

    I believe the speed at which it unfolds is intimately connected to the quality of our attention, consciousness and state of being. The more capacity we have to steward a better world, the more it will unfold.

    Change starts within.

This Mental Health Ad Got Over 50 Million Views When Launched


Set Your Pulse: Take a breath. Turn your attention to your body and release any tension. Breathe slowly into the area of your heart for 60 seconds, focusing on feeling a sense of ease. Stay connected to your body as you read. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

My next piece coming in a few days will very much relate to this piece from the standpoint of exploring interconnection within the metacrisis. I wanted to release this today to set the stage to explore one driver in why so many are feeling unwell.

Some stats suggest that by age 40, 50% of the population in Canada will have had a mental health illness. These numbers are rather similar in other developed countries. I would also venture to say the truth is probably much higher given many will never seek help or get a diagnosis.

These days in the US, about one-third, or 30% of female teens have seriously considered suicide. Perhaps it’s because 57% of US girls report feeling many consecutive days of consistent sadness. For boys, there has been a sharp rise in suicides among teens 15 and older since 2000. They now die by suicide at three to four times the rate of girls. Epidemics of loneliness and meaninglessness are felt in countries around the world.

Part of the ongoing meaning/meta crisis we are facing is the decline of mental health. The good news is we are also seeing a rise in awareness about the issue. That said, there is certainly something going on with the way we are living that is not producing thriving human beings, and we have to talk about it. I think many people sense this.

I want to kick this off with a powerful mental health ad that was viewed over 50 million times in a week between TikTok, Instagram, YouTube and others when it was released.

UK soccer club Norwich City FC produced the ad to raise awareness about mental health. I had not seen the ad until just yesterday. But it was so powerful I wanted to share it.

Check out the ad before we continue.

“Check in on those around you.”

Powerful ad isn’t it?

I’m sure we all know someone who might say they are ‘fine’ but we might sense something is off. Perhaps that person is us. Further, we might know someone who seems perfectly fine all the time but is silently struggling inside.

This has also been one of the big revelations of the social media era. People can pretend to be perfectly fine for years on end, only to one day come out revealing how much their entire online persona was fake as they struggled behind the scenes.

The truth is, the same can happen in the offline world too.

How can we be there for one another? How can we better create space for us to talk about mental health in a supportive way? Then again, how can we know if someone is truly having a tough time?

In life, my client work as a breath and nervous system coach, and just talking with friends and family, several things come up that seem to touch on why mental health can be a conundrum.

  1. Given our current world and the stigma around talking about our true feelings, people have a hard time knowing how other people around them are actually doing. This makes it hard to know where we land in the mix, which can create a sense of silence as we don’t want to be the odd one out.

  2. Another issue is a bit more tricky. We don’t have a good societal sense of what good mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual health is. We see health as the absence of disease, but in reality, we’ve come to accept many unhealthy things as normal because that’s how we’ve mal-adapted to be in the world. Constant stress is normal. Chronic health conditions are normal. Emotional repression is normal. Being fidgety and anxious is normal. Weak digestion is normal. Mediocre sleep is normal. Phone addiction is normal. A lack of exercise is normal. Being tired a lot is normal. Daily drinking, smoking cannabis, eating a lot, and other distractions are normal.

Sure, not everyone finds this ‘normal,’ but most do. When all of this becomes normal, why would we think there is something wrong? Something that can be improved upon? It may not lead to suicide in most cases, but we simply accept ‘meh’ as normal for human function. Because we can laugh during a movie, all other things we struggle with are ‘just how it is.’

The truth is, we don’t have a good sense of what a healthy human actually looks like, and we’re all mostly just doing our best to get by in a world so poorly designed that it makes us sick. Economies, GDP, growth, etc are what’s important, human health comes second.

That said, it’s OK. We can do a lot to improve how we feel regardless of current our societal design and state of the world.

As I talk about in my soon-to-be-released course on building personal resilience, we have to become more resilient to solve our local and collective challenges. WE, as WELL people, will be the drivers of solving our collective metacrisis – as opposed to externalities solving us. It’s not just thinking that will solve things either, it’s deeper than that.

We are whole beings. Our brain, heart, body, and spirit are all connected. They don’t operate separately from one another. Taking care of our total being feeds into our wellness and helps to keep mental health (and other health) issues at bay.

Here are some basic places to start. Remember, it rarely works to overhaul your entire life in one go. Think of small manageable steps and build as new habits strengthen.

1. Social Connection – As mammals, we thrive on being connected with other humans. Make some time to have coffee/tea/other arbitrary beverage with a friend. The face to face connection sparks up our ventral vagus nerve and signals safety, support, and connection. This builds our wellbeing. Make it a point to connect with people you enjoy multiple times a week, even if for 15, 20 or 30 mins each time. Heck, say a momentary connection with cashiers, workers, waiters etc. Spark up connection.

2. Slow Down – We move through life very quickly, moving from one thing to the next to the next. This can be very dysregulating to the brain and nervous system, and promotes further angst. Move more slowly, take breaks, add more time between tasks, and avoid multi tasking. I was one of those people who used to multi task. Stopping was powerful. I know some are proud of their ability to do it, but it’s not doing our mental, physical and emotional health any favors.

3. Move Daily – We’re meant to move. Sitting still all day long eats away at our mental and physical health in big ways. Our spiritual and emotional health won’t be too far behind. Make it a point to walk at a pretty decent pace for 20 or 30 mins a day. Start at just 5 minutes if you have to. I used to target my heart rate at about 110 – 115 when I began walking as my form of movement. At that rate, it’s zone 2 exercise and very helpful for your overall energy levels and wellbeing.

4. Get Good Sleep – Limit phones, TV, and similar forms of blue light for 30 – 60 minutes before bed, and don’t bring your phone to your room. Make your sleeping conditions ideal for you to sleep well. A solid 7 – 8 hrs will help restore and repair your body and brain daily. As sleep declines, everything else follows.

5. Hydrate Well – 2 – 3 litres of water a day is key. More if you exercise a lot, and more if you drink coffee. Chronic dehydration leads to other health issues, poor sleep etc. Think interconnection.

6. Eat Real Food – Cooking at home as much as you can is key. Eat real fresh food. Avoid processed stuff including sugars. Fruits, vegetables, and whole foods all nourish the body and brain.

7. Practice Embodiment – Whether you want to meditate, do QiGong, breathe, or simply come back to your body with your awareness, having a practice that can start as little as 5 mins a day and build up is key. We’re quick to make time for our phones but dread taking 5 fully focused minutes to slow down and be with ourselves. Yet it’s one of the best things we can do. Here is a practice I often recommend as it’s powerful as simple. There are audio only versions I created so you can download them and take them where you want.

8. Reach out To Someone – Working with someone has benefits for many reasons. It provides support, helps to move things forward, and provides a palatable sense of becoming healthier. Talk therapy can be helpful, but working with a somatic or body-based practitioner can be even more helpful in my experience. I am also a big believer in IFS (Internal Family Systems or Part Work). In work with my clients, those who show up with an open heart and mind, and practice outside of sessions, see good results. Key takeaway, the practice lifestyle is important. (No self promo here, not taking any more clients right now.)

In closing, what does it mean to be well? What have we accepted as normal that may not be? Is there a part of yourself you know you’ve been wanting to improve upon but have been putting it off? Perhaps it’s time to explore!

How do you check in with your friends and family about how they are doing? Is there someone out there who could use 15 minutes of connection?

It’s up to us to take care of each other. No need to wait for governments to fumble around trying to figure it out while they kick us in the proverbial nuts every chance they get.


The Most Important Press Freedom Case In The World Will Be Decided This Week


Set Your Pulse: Take a breath. Turn your attention to your body and release any tension. Breathe slowly into the area of your heart for 60 seconds, focusing on feeling a sense of ease. Stay connected to your body as you read. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

“We should have been reading condemnations of Julian Assange’s persecution—for the crime of breaking news—on the front page of the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, The Washington Post every single day until he was released from a dungeon. It should never have come to this.”

– NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden

This week, the UK High Court will decide on whether to extradite Julian Assange to the United States, the country that tried to assassinate him.

As many of you probably know, Assange is the founder of Wikileaks, an organization that leaked millions of classified documents which exposed extremely corrupt and egregious actions of various multinational corporations, organizations and governments. These actions include war crimes, the lies that have been used to justify war, environmental terrorism, political terrorism and more.

Many of the leaks from Wikileaks included details of US activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, including attacks on innocent civilians. They also revealed details of the US treatment of prisoners in Guantánamo Bay and links to clandestine activities in the Middle East, like goals to destabilize multiple governments. These destabilization efforts were carried out with little, if any, regard for their impact on civilians who are often caught in the crossfire. Oftentimes civilians were used to ramp up death counts.

“One of the hopeful things that I’ve discovered is that nearly every war that has started in the past 50 years has been a result of media lies. The media could have stopped it, if they had searched deep enough, if they hadn’t re-printed government propaganda they could have stopped it. But what does that mean? Well that means, basically, populations don’t like wars, and populations have to be fooled into wars, populations don’t willingly go to war. So if we have a good media environment, then we will also have a peaceful environment.”

Julian Assange

If Assange is taken from the high-security Belmarsh prison (where he is currently kept) to face a trial and a potential 175-year jail sentence in the US, there is no prospect at all for a fair trial. As his wife Stella Assange recently remarked, “he will die.”

You can find live updates of the trial here.

Assange was charged under the Espionage Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, largely for actions rightfully recognized as protected news-gathering practices.

In his case, the Espionage Act has been turned into a weapon to attack good journalism. It’s astonishing how the US administration is attempting to prosecute Assange, claiming that he compromised US “national security” while completely ignoring the horrendous crimes committed by the US and their allies.

The Espionage Act was intended for use against spies.

“If Julian is extradited he will be put on trial in Alexandria, Virginia, where he stands no chance of a fair trial. It is where US intelligence agencies are headquartered. The court complex is 15 miles from CIA headquarters. The state is populated by employees of the very sector whose abuses and crimes Julian exposed. The Espionage Act prevents Julian from arguing why he published what he published, what he exposed, and the fact it didn’t result in any physical harm.”

Stella Assange

The charges laid against Assange have been met with international condemnation from various civil liberties, human rights, and journalistic communities. More than two dozen organizations including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters without Borders, The National Union of Journalists and more have repeatedly urged the US Department of Justice to drop its prosecution of Assange.

This is the first time in history that the US government and its allies have brought criminal charges against a publisher for the publication of truthful information.

Australia’s parliament has just passed a motion by 86 votes to 42 calling for the release of Assange.

A December 2022 poll by Elon Musk on “X” asked, “Should Assange and Snowden be pardoned?” The answer was an overwhelming yes, with 80.5 percent of approximately 3.3 million people voting to pardon.

The collective public opinion on Assange is quite clear and has been for some time.

The UN special rapporteur on torture, Alice Jill Edwards, has even urged the government to halt the extradition, based on fears that he would be at risk of treatment amounting to torture, which Assange has already had to endure during his stint at Belmarsh.

The previous UN special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, did the same. Below is a great quote from him I use in every article I wrote about Assange,

“How far have we sunk if telling the truth becomes a crime? How far have we sunk if we prosecute people that expose war crimes for exposing war crimes? How far have we sunk when we no longer prosecute our own war criminals? Because we identify more with them, than we identify with the people that actually expose these crimes. What does that tell about us and about our governments? In a democracy, the power does not belong to the government, but to the people. But the people have to claim it. Secrecy disempowers the people because it prevents them from exercising democratic control, which is precisely why governments want secrecy.”

Never before has it been more clear that public opinion and consensus have no impact whatsoever on big decisions. As we move forward, efforts to stifle public opinion continue to go stronger. Those who speak out and against government “fact” or opinion can be ridiculed, punished and/or labeled as conspiracy theorists or a threat to national security. Businesses can be demonetized and practically shut down, especially independent media organizations.

The US Department of Homeland Security even toyed with the idea of punishing people who share “misinformation” online and labelling this act as domestic terrorism during the pandemic.

On the other side of the coin, governments today use a tremendous amount of propaganda to shape public opinion, and you can’t have a democracy when that happens.

“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”

– Richard Feyman

The war against journalism is strong, and in a sense, we in the Western world continue to march towards a society where opposition to government measures in times of crisis is not acceptable. What does the future look like? Will you lose your ability to post online? Lose your ability to access your funds (like we saw with the Freedom Convoy)? Will you continue to be ridiculed and placed in the crazy “conspiracy” realm regardless of your background and expertise?

Who knows, but one thing is for certain, the extradition of Julian Assange will create even more awareness about the issues free press is facing. Perhaps it would be in the power elites’ best interest not to extradite Assange, but perhaps if they don’t, they risk more leaks from Wikileaks in the future?

Either way, the power elite lose. This is because this coming week more people will become aware of who Julian Assange is and what he exposed despite mainstream media not condemning his imprisonment and bringing awareness to what he exposed.

I’d like to leave you with an interesting post by activist Greg Bean. In it, he brings up Johannes Gutenberg, the man who first introduced the printing press to the world.

He writes about how that single act created a free press, which gave birth to the concept of freedom of speech, and how the two are “inextricably linked; printing is a form of speech.”

“Gutenberg’s invention started the Printing Revolution, a milestone of the 2nd millennium that initiated the modern period of human history including the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Age of Enlightenment, and the Scientific Revolution, and began the knowledge-based economy that spread learning to the masses. Such mass communication permanently altered the structure of society. Removing control of information from the hands of the powerful and delivering it into the hands of the disempowered.

The broad circulation of information, including revolutionary ideas, in many languages, undermined Latin’s dominant status and the authority previously held by those trained in Latin, it transcended borders, threatened the power of political and religious authorities, increased literacy breaking the monopoly of the literate elite on education and learning, and bolstered the emerging middle class. It increased cultural self-awareness and cultural cohesion and undermined the authority of distant rulers and high priests.

WikiLeaks’ threat to the powerful was recognised and every effort was, and is, being made to criminalise anonymous leaking, which would be akin to criminalizing Gutenberg’s printing press, but there is not much chance this criminalisation will succeed.”

I suggest you read the full piece as it makes some very interesting points.

“Julian was just doing his job, which was to publish the truth about wrongdoing. His loyalty is the same as that which all journalists should have: to the public. Not to the spy agencies of a foreign power. He published evidence that the country that is trying to extradite him committed war crimes and covered them up; that it committed gross violations that killed tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children; that it tortured and rendered; that it bombed children, had death squads, and murdered Reuters journalists in cold blood; that it bribed foreign officials and bullied less powerful countries into harming their own citizens, and that it also corrupted allied nations’ judicial inquiries into US wrongdoing.”

Stella Assange


Two Expert Scientists Debate The Mortality (Death) Effects of COVID-19 Vaccines: Was it Really 17 Million?


Image via 123RF

How many people have died from COVID-19 vaccines? It’s an impossible question to answer, especially given the fact that multiple countries have ineffectual vaccine injury surveillance systems.

The CDC claims that serious vaccine injuries occur in approximately 1 in a million people, yet they claim such a number without a proper adverse events reporting systems in place. Why don’t they provide any sources or data for their claim?

It’s already well known that serious adverse reactions (like death and permanent disability) are subjected to widespread and significant under-reporting when it comes to prescription drugs. But what about vaccines? And what about vaccines prior to COVID-19 jabs?

Three Harvard medical scholars (professors Ross Lazarus, Michael Klompas, and Steve Bernstein) emphasized in a 2011 report titled “Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS)” that:

“Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.”

Other than this information, there doesn’t seem to be any adequate data regarding vaccine injury surveillance. The authors also failed to specify what type of injuries are mostly unreported. I guess we can’t really know that because they are indeed unreported. If we’re talking about a sore arm, or getting sick after a flu shot, it doesn’t mean anything.

This is why vaccine injuries and serious adverse events were considered extremely rare among medical professionals before COVID-19 shots. But things have changed.

The COVID pandemic marked the first time in history when renowned vaccine experts, developers, scientists and doctors were labelled as “anti-vaxxers” en masse.

But there were signals for concern before COVID-19. For example, after 30 years of observation, it was shown that children vaccinated with the DTP shot were dying of other causes at 10 times the rate of the unvaccinated. We would have never known about this if no one looked.

What else have we missed? Could we be missing something now? This was actually what led to the passing of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which has since protected vaccine manufacturers from any liability. 

“This law also created the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, to “protect” and warn the public of potential vaccine danger; a system that has been shown to underreport injuries as commonly as it gets ignored.”

Dr. Madhava Setty, a board certified anesthesiologist, electrical engineer, author.

Then COVID-19 Vaccines Came Along

On July 16th, 1999, the CDC recommended that healthcare providers suspend the use of the licensed, RotaShield – a rotavirus vaccine – after only 15 cases of intussusception were reported to VAERS. But now, multiple vaccine injury reporting systems, including VAERS, have had millions of serious adverse reactions reported as a result of COVID-19 vaccines.

In fact, more than 50 percent of vaccine injuries reported to VAERS since its inception are all due to COVID products. This is a jaw-dropping fact. Yet during the pandemic these signals were cast away as mere “conspiracy theories” as a result of “misinformation.”

Sure, VAERS is a self-reporting system that lends itself to inaccurate and fabricated reports, but it’s safe to say a concerning signal has been detected. So why not properly investigate and acknowledge that there could be cause for concern?

“They are not being ignored because they are fabricated or inaccurate; they are being ignored because our health authorities have chosen not to investigate them.”

– Setty

All of this has led to multiple experts in the field with differing opinions on just how many people have died as a result of COVID-19 vaccination. One thing for certain is people have died as a result of COVID-19 vaccination.

Bret Weinstein, an American podcaster, author, and former professor of evolutionary biology made an appearance on the Tucker Carlson Show on January 5, 2024, stating his opinion that COVID-19 vaccines have caused at least 17 million deaths worldwide.

To put this estimate into perspective, if 17 million people died from the jab, that would be 17 million/8.1 billion if everyone in the world were vaccinated, or 0.21% of the population killed. But only 5.55 billion people have been vaccinated with any vaccines so that’s 17 million /5.55 billion = 0.31% of all vaccinated people killed.

Weinstein cited the research of respected academics, Denis G. Rancourt, Marine Baudin, Joseph Hickey, and Jérémie Mercier.

But other academics who have also been raising awareness about deaths caused by the vaccine, and other harms associated with it were quick to criticize the 17 million estimate. One of them is Tracey Beth Høeg, M.D., Ph.D,. practicing PM&R and epidemiologist.

“I have deep sympathy for people who have lost a loved one to COVID-19 vaccination and I am dedicating this post to them. My criticism of Rancourt et al’s analysis stems from the fact I think people are owed as accurate of data as possible. In regards to my current position, I don’t think COVID-19 vaccines should continue to be used and I have made this clear publicly on multiple occasions including here. This is based on lack of evidence of efficacy and an incompletely defined risk profile. 

Now I want to give quick shoutouts to Denis Rancourt and his colleagues for attempting to answer a very difficult question and inspiring this post. I am sure he will have responses to what I wrote and they are welcome. Second, I did not get into all of the parts of Bret’s interview that I loved, but I thought this tweet from Aaron Kheriaty summed up my feelings brilliantly:

Controversial claims and interpretations should lead to conversations and more data, not cancellations. Bret actually said in the interview that we need more physician scientists doing honest investigative journalism about current health issues like post-vaccination deaths and excess mortality. In that spirit, I hope this post can start a productive discussion. Please feel free to point out anything you feel I got wrong or things I should have included.”

You can read Høeg’s entire criticism of the 17 million death claim here, and the data she used to pick apart the claims made by Rancourt et al.

It was posted on the “The Illusion of Consensus.” It’s a platform created by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research, and journalist Rav Aurora.

It was great that she pointed out that “Controversial claims and interpretations should lead to conversations and more data, not cancellations.” Unfortunately, this doesn’t happen with information, data and opinions from experts that “go against the grain.”

Sometimes it seems, with all things COVID-19 especially, that experts opposing government measures for COVID-19 were actually in the majority. But mainstream media and big government have tremendous power when it comes to manipulating the perception of the masses to whatever best suits their interests.

What was also posted was an actual debate between Høeg and Rancourt after Høeg published her criticism, which was refreshing to see.

“In this important Illusion of Consensus debate, two excellent scientists,. @tracybethhoeg and @denisrancourt discuss the epidemiological evidence regarding the mortality effects of the COVID-19 vaccines.”

– Bhattacharya

You can access the debate here.

What’s the point of sharing this? The point is that respected academics and brilliant minds are so far apart in their opinions regarding how many people have or could have died as a result of COVID-19 vaccination, that no solid conclusions can be made.

All of this results from a lack of proper injury surveillance systems and a failure to investigate vaccine injury claims. Government health authorities continue to ignore the screams and cries of those who have been injured, and all of the research pointing to the mechanisms of action that may be responsible for such serious injuries.

The point is, you’re not going to find what you’re not looking for, and big pharmaceutical companies have a long history of simply not looking.

Perhaps this is why our publication has often stated we must be careful about running around screaming that everybody will die, or that COVID-19 vaccines have special trackers in them, or whatever. In many ways, these unfounded claims do more harm than good in synthesizing information when it comes to controversial issues like this. There is more than enough data and science to clearly show cause for concern. Unsupported claims tend to land everything in the “conspiracy theory” category and as a result, they are easily made “viral” for the purpose of ridicule.

“Another CDC scientist told us: “I used to be proud to tell people I work at the CDC. Now I’m embarrassed.” Why are they embarrassed? In short, bad science. The longer answer: that the heads of their agencies are using weak or flawed data to make critically important public health decisions. That such decisions are being driven by what’s politically palatable to people in Washington or to the Biden administration. And that they have a myopic focus on one virus instead of overall health.”

– Marty Makary M.D., M.P.H. and Tracy Beth Høeg M.D., Ph.D. U.S. Public Health Agencies Aren’t ‘Following the Science,’ Officials Say.


Tomorrow: Finding Unfoldment In Uncertainty


Set Your Pulse: Take a breath. Turn your attention to your body and release any tension. Breathe slowly into the area of your heart for 60 seconds, focusing on feeling a sense of ease. Stay connected to your body as you read. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

A survey in the UK from 2019 found that across all age groups, 80% of people found life to be meaningless. The feeling is greatest in younger generations. Keep in mind, this is before the COVID era.

The primary reason people felt their lives were meaningless was that finances were holding them back from fully living. I would challenge this. I think something much deeper is going on.

The meaning crisis is emerging from a greater metacrisis. The convergence of global challenges, societal collapse, and human suffering are all interrelated and driven by complex connections.

On a deep level, most of us sense that something is not right with the way our world functions, and we’ve reached a point where this truth is so loud we can’t ignore it. As I’ve often stated, it’s an uncomfortable and uncertain evolutionary pressure. It’s exactly what we need to push us to evolve.

Yet with all of this ‘change’ unfolding across every layer of society – including in our minds, emotions, consciousness and relationships – uncertainty for the future can feel heavy.

The more we resist the more suffering we experience. Instead, can we meet the uncertainty and how we feel about what’s happening with curiosity? Can we sense deeper into what we are feeling and find acceptance in the process of unfolding?

During a conversation with a friend about this whole process, he wanted to offer a poem for your enjoyment. I thought I’d share it below as an artistic contribution to our work here.

– Joe

Tomorrow – By Jamiel Conlon

The space between worlds
The space between dreams
We awaken in a world
that is not what it seems

The clocks turn their hands
As we turn our backs on the past
Time slips through the glass
And here we are at last

A planet caught between places
caught in the middle of it all
trappings in spaces
causing humanities fall

We can rise again to meet the day
We can rise again and find a new way

What we do ourselves now can give us a chance
and we can snap right out of this age old trance

You see we cannot see with absolute proof
Staying stuck in the future keeps us aloof

Only now can we know
through the movements we create
the way forward for our planet
and determine its fate

The stars will align
as we get in tune
and before you know it
tomorrow will be here soon


What If DNA Code is Artificial Intelligence?


Set Your Pulse: Take a breath. Turn your attention to your body and release any tension. Breathe slowly into the area of your heart for 60 seconds, focusing on feeling a sense of ease. Stay connected to your body as you read. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Years ago, I had what I thought was an epiphany after watching a video on TED.  In the video futurist Juan Enriquez compares the sequence of letters comprising the biochemicals of DNA with the code on a floppy disc.

Holding up the disc in the video, Enriquez says:

“Because this thing codes ones and zeros, and this thing codes A T, C, G’s, and it sits up there, absorbing energy on a tree, and one fine day it has enough energy to say, execute, and it goes thump. Right?

And when it does that, pushes an .EXE (Executable), what it does is, it executes the first line of code, which reads just like that, AATCAGGGACCC, and that means: make a root Next line of code: make a stem. Next line of code, TACGGGG: make a flower that’s white, that blooms in the spring that smells like this.”

(From my book “If DNA Is Software, Who Wrote the Code?” still up on Amazon)

I compared this to HTML where the code might say:
Create a new page
Add a title
Make it bold and dark blue
Center a picture below the title – and so on.

In the book, I said that seeing the “AATCAGGGACCC” of DNA operate in the same way as our own software (and this was eight years ago) suggests that it is in fact an organic operating system for our bodies.

It also brought up this question: – we know how our own software is developed. It involves humans writing or generating the code that completes tasks such as word processing, spreadsheets and now video and on and on.

The simplistic responses included “it’s Evolution” – which makes no sense because evolution is actually controlled by the program.  There would be no evolution without DNA, not the other way around.

The key point was that like our own software, DNA clearly must be the product of (a) Mind.

It could not have come about by chance and points to the existence of higher intelligence somewhere or somehow.

I speculated that it was also quite possible that the origin of the code was the expression of Nature’s intelligence — which has yet to be discovered.

It turns out that my ideas were first raised by Francis Crick, one of the two scientists who won the Nobel Prize for discovering DNA.

Because Crick thought that DNA — because of its complexity and logical structure – must be older than the earth itself – he coined the term “Panspermia”.  This was his theory that life on Earth originated elsewhere and came here on comets and meteors or in some other way.

On History Channel’s Ancient Aliens, of course, they claim it was “directed” Panspermia by an advanced civilization, but we have no evidence of that.  So far.

What we do have, however, is the reality that DNA is code – as Enriquez says elsewhere, so “Life is Code”.

We also now have evidence that lower life forms and organic materials including DNA can survive in outer space, and have found traces of these on meteors and comets.

And now we have also been confronted by the possible consequences of an entirely new kind of program – Artificial Intelligence.

The thing is AI is also nothing more than another set of code that simulates human thought and behavior.

So, if Life is Code, and AI is also Code, could the code behind life, DNA, be artificial intelligence?

And what might that even mean, in the context of it being of unknown origin?

Again, an advanced civilization would likely also have AI, so did they create Life by programming DNA? 

Wouldn’t such an advanced species presumably also be alive, so with DNA in their systems – creating a paradox?  It’s a delicious mystery.

In my view, however, the development of AI by humans dramatically ratchets up the stakes.

Not only does the development of software programs for productivity and graphics suggest that any logically structured code must be an intellectual product, but now we have created programs that – write new code and can replicate themselves.

That’s why there is so much concern about AI potentially posing a great danger.

But the mystery of the code that exists in our bodies and expresses the intentions of Life, and can now be edited by CRISPR, is far greater.

Our technology has exposed the deeper mystery behind our existence and consciousness – because what else could intelligence be but an expression of consciousness?

And because we have now created Code that writes Code, we really have no way of knowing whether the origin of DNA (and Life) is another Life form (contradictory) or – perhaps even another program.

It is a confusing conundrum logically; but the really important takeaway is that all of this is proof that while we have mental activity in our brains and parts of our nervous system, Mind is really at the heart of Existence or Life itself.

The discovery of programs that can mimic human intentions and create new programs puts us into an entirely new and mysterious universe.

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all previous centuries of its existence.” —Nikola Tesla.

Turns out the mystery is US.

We are an expression of an immense mystery which we cannot objectify – because we are the subject and not any object.

Could this realization or recognition by a critical mass of humanity finally shed us of much of our conditioned beliefs — and expand our view of ourselves and our potential?

If nothing else it once again points to the reality of a unity of everything.  Why?  Because an unknown entity (not a “thing”), which we simplistically label “Mind” or “intellect” is behind everything.

And because we are also “it”, the reality of what mind may be has evaded our understanding.

But in this scenario one thing is clear – the concept of ‘artificial’ is now meaningless.

Using the word “artificial” separates us from Nature as having created a completely “human” intelligence when we are neither separate from Nature nor is AI truly “intelligent”.

Unless we consider having a large vocabulary and being able to come up with the perfect word (or label) a sign of intelligence. Then we can call ChatGPT “intelligent” – but it still isn’t thinking.

Maybe Intelligence (or Mind) is ALL?

(Tom Bunzel was a contributor to Collective Evolution and now writes for The Pulse.  His new book “Conversations with Nobody: Getting to Know ChatGPT” – a book written with AI, about AI and giving a taste of AI, is available on Amazon.)