Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from news talks it B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of us Now the Layton
Smith Podcast powered by news talks it B.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to podcast two hundred and fifty seven for September
twenty five, twenty twenty four. What is truth is not
an original question, Neither has it been answered legitimately in
a myriad of circumstances. In fact, the search for truth
has been stymied more often than most people would ever realize,
(00:49):
in all sorts of circumstances. But for it to continue
in the most elite circles as often as it does
is not almost criminal, but criminality at its most shameful.
And so it is in the world of science and medicine. Essentially,
it's a case of follow the money. The story of
doctor Linus Pauling is fascinating. His book The Nature of
(01:12):
the Chemical Bond was or is considered chemistry's most influential
book of the century. In the three decades since it
was published, it was cited sixteen thousand times. Linus Pauling
is one of only five in history to win two
Nobel Prizes, but Pauling was essentially sacked from his job
(01:35):
at the California Institute of Technology. Doctor Paul Merrick has
enjoyed his reputation as the most published and influential clinician
researcher in critical care medicine in the United States, and
for good reason. Doctor Merrick is a giant in the
academic research world, with an h index of triple i,
(01:59):
which placed him in the top percentile of the world's
elite published positions. But doctor Merrick was forced out of
his position and career. To add a further insult, he
was pressured to resign his medical license. A less a
man might have given up, but not doctor Merrick. Despite
facing financial, personal and professional ruin, Marrek focused not on
(02:21):
himself but on others. With laser like intensity dodtor. Merrick
found his footing on what mattered most to him, saving
the life of others. But it didn't stop there. The
story of doctor Paul Merrick is fascinating. Following the events
that I've in part described, doctor Merrick turned his attention
(02:42):
to cancer, but first something came to light shortly before
this podcast was put to bed, and it came in
the form of an email from Jordan Williams from the
Taxpayers Union. At it's headed, Andrew Costa has lost the plot.
Political pundits across the country spat out their coffee this
(03:03):
morning upon turning to The New Zealand Herald's front page
splash that Andrew Costa speaks out on being dragged into
political debate. Andrew Coster is either trolling the nation or
has the self awareness of a paper clip. According to
Jordan Williams, Costa has overseen an enormous pivot by the
(03:24):
New Zealand Police toward politics and advocacy. Back in June,
the Police Commissioner's alter ego one Andrew Caster was doing
media rounds advocating for the government to change alcohol regulations.
For someone now crying tears about being dragged into political debates,
it is weird that he was literally leading Morning Report
(03:45):
just a few months ago in advocating for minimum pricing
of alcohol. At the time, the Taxpayers Union labeled Costa
a constitutional barbarian in that he was blatantly ignoring the
long held constitutional convention that police, especially leadership, enforced the law,
(04:06):
not lobby to change it has given the middle finger
to the conventions he was supposed to protect. No wonder
the new government has not been able to express confidence
in him. It is a sad reflection on New Zealand
and our public sector that the only way the government
has been able to move Costa along is to park
him in a cushy job in another government department. His
(04:29):
lag of judgment shows he should be nowhere near a
leadership role. Cabinet ministers know that that have gone along
with yet another fudge orchestrated by the Public Services Commission
for those that want our public service to succeed. It
is deeply depressing. Now I've sat on the sideline for
(04:50):
goodness knows how long now and what's cost it in action?
And I've wondered time and time again how does this
man retain that position? What does he know that we don't,
Layton Smith, there are essential fat nutrients that we need
(05:14):
in our diets as the body cart manufacture them. These
are Omega three and Omega six fatty acids. Equisine is
a combination of fish oil and virgin evening primrose oil,
a formula that provides an excellent source of Omega three
and Omega six fatty acids in their naturally existing ratios.
The Omega six from evening primrose oil assists the Omega
(05:36):
three fish oil to be more effective. Equisine is a
high quality fish oil supplement enriched with evening primrose oil
that works synergistically for comprehensive health support. Source from the
deep sea sardines, Anchovisa Magril provide essential Amiga three fatty
acids in their purest form without any internal organs or toxins.
Every batch is tested for its purity before it's allowed
(05:59):
to be sold. Equisine supports cells to be flexible, so
important to support healthy blood flow and overall cardiovascular health.
Equisine can support mood, balance and mental clarity and focus
in children, all the way to supporting stiff joints, mental focus,
brain health and healthy eyes as we get older. Equas
in as a premium, high grade fish and evening primrose
(06:21):
oil to be taken in addition to a healthy diet
and is only available from pharmacies and health stores. Always
read the label and users directed, and if symptoms persist,
see your healthcare professional. Farmer Broker Auckland. There is a
book that came out in nineteen eighty two. It's called
(06:43):
Betrayers of the Truth, Fraud and Deceit in the Halls
of Science. Nicholas Wade is a journalist with The New
York Times. He was one of the co authors, and
it's the sort of book that The New York Times,
quite frankly these days, wouldn't want to be associated with.
In my opinion, I want to quote you from the back.
Betrays of the Truth is an important book for it
(07:05):
challenges the conventional wisdom of objectivity in science. It is
not an indictment of all scientists, but rather a thoughtful,
well written, and well documented analysis of how fraud and
self delusion can occur in a system which too often
is claimed to be immune to such deviations. I commend
it to all readers. Now, the author of that quote
(07:29):
was doctor Robert H. Ebert, former dean Harvard Medical School. Now,
with the reputation that Harvard has at the moment, which
is pretty near the bottom of a pit that's unlikely
to come out of anybody from Harvard, that to me
gives the opinion more weight. Anyway, It's a very good
book that you can get on the second hand book
(07:49):
market still. Now, off the back of that Washington post
published August fourteen, the American Board of Internal Medicine revoked
the certifications of Pierre Corey and Paul Merrick, two physicians
known for continuing to promote ibermectin and anti parasitic medicaid
as a treatment for COVID long after the medical community
(08:12):
founded to be ineffective. The two men co founded the
Frontline COVID nineteen Critical Care Alliance, which experts say spread
misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic. Now you know that my
opinion on experts these days has changed dramatically from what
it was a few years ago. I'm sick to death
of the word experts. The aforementioned Dr Paul Merrick is
(08:37):
in the country at the moment. He is doing a
speaking tour with another doctor specifically and more people. And
it's my great pleasure to welcome Dr Paul Merrick to
the Latensmith podcast. Welcome to New Zealand. Also, by the way,
I know you've only been here a couple of days.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Thank you kindly. It's an honor and apprivileged to be
on the radio show with you.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
Just referring to that last little little quote I read
from the Washington Post about you losing your license. That's
not quite accurate, I know, because your license, particularly the
Virginia license, which was where you were mostly expired in
twenty twenty two. But the fact that they're still chasing you,
(09:25):
they're still hunting you down, not just you, not just
per Cory, but probably a countless number of, shall we say,
most proficient doctors in America are the subject of a
similar activity. What do you say to that, now.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
Yeah, so you're absolutely right that they revoked our board
certification because we were accused of spreading misinformation and we
are misinformationists and the reality is we just try to
tell the truth. And science is not finite, it's not decided.
(10:06):
It's an ongoing process, and you should be able to
have a dialogue, free dialogue. And once once you sensor science,
you decapitate science. And so you absolutely correct, they're going
after peer and myself. And you may not know this,
but I wrote a book called a Cancer Care Repurpose
(10:28):
Drugs for the Treatment of Cancer, and the day before
I actually came to New Zealand, the book was banned
by Amazon. So Amazon was selling the book. They had
been selling it for over a year, and then I
got an email saying that you know, the information that
I was providing was not truthful, was misleading, and that
(10:51):
they banning my book and that I'm being banned for life.
And all I was doing really was quoting peer reviewed
literature as long as if I was making this stuff up.
You know, the book has over eight hundred and sixty
peer reviewed references and everything is peer reviewed, so there
(11:11):
isn't assault if you go against the narrative, if you
if you dissent in any way, it's what they do,
whoever that they is. And it's very disturbing because you know,
we should be able to in the same way as
we're having a conversation. Now we may not agree with
(11:31):
each other, but at least we can have a professional,
courteous discussion, and that's what science and what life is about.
And they don't like that.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
Now, is it possible that you can appeal against them?
Speaker 3 (11:48):
So we are yes. I mean, I think many people
are outraged because it's completely unprecedented in in publishing history,
because there are books that they sell that are for
you know, for more for far less scientific, that provide
information which is not truly accurate, and they being sold
(12:09):
by Amazon. So we feel that they're specifically targeting me
and targeting the book because you know, we strongly challenge,
very strongly challenged the status quo, and that's what they
don't like, particularly the financial implications. So in the US,
cancer care is a two hundred billion plus industry, and
(12:32):
so we are providing, you know, alternatives which can be
used adjunctively or independently to promote people's health, to prevent cancer,
and as adjunctive therapy to treat cancer. And obviously this
goes against the narrative and it goes against mainstream medicine.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
You know, I have just checked with Amazon Australia because
I've had a previous experience where the book was no
longer available in America, but I could get it from
Amazon Australia. What I've got is currently unavailable. We don't
know when or if this item will be back in stock.
So there's the answer. I would like to arrange with
(13:18):
you somehow that I get a copy of that.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
Yeah, so obviously the book's no longer available, and so
the email they sent me made it quite clear that
the book has discontinued. My accounts discontinued, and I've been discontinued.
So the book you can't get from Amazon. We obviously
are working out alternatives, but I can most certainly send
(13:41):
you a PDF of the book for you to read.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
That would be very useful. Now, I did know that
you'd published that book, because I've done a little bit
of a little bit of background. But what I don't
understand is how they can justify the comments that they
made to you based on the statistics that you produced
(14:05):
and the effect that it had on patients at East
Virginia Medical School where you were in those early days.
What has followed on from that, sorry, after you left EVMS,
what has followed on as far as that hospital is concerned.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
Yes, that's a good question that they that continued along
their merry way as if I was never there. So,
I mean, the way this all started, if you remember,
is in March of twenty twenty, the NIH the CDC,
the who said, you know, there's no specific treatment for COVID,
(14:42):
you just stay at home until you got blue. And
any physician will tell you that's completely ridiculous. A physician
is not going to just watch a secrepation and do nothing.
So that's what was the impetus for, you know, doctor
Corey and myself and some other colleagues to put together
the FLCCC and the protocols, and so that's what we did,
(15:04):
and it was based on the best available science. You know,
we looked, we understood the disease, we understood the science,
and we basically put together a protocol. You know, initially
we recommended corticos steroids, and we were severely reprimanded. People
said it was unethical to use the cordico steroids for
(15:26):
a viral illness. But lo and behold, six months later,
the recovery study came out showing that cudico steroids were
life saving. We used anti coagulants happened, which was subsolutely
proven to be correct. And then obviously we realized that
the best way to control the pandemic was early treatment.
(15:48):
And I think that remains as valid today as it
was then. Is there's no disease that benefits from waiting
until the patient progresses to the point they need to
go to a hospital. It's an absurdity. So we put
together an early treatment protocol. And as it so happens,
there are twenty or twenty five pharmaceutical or nutraceutical drugs
(16:12):
that have been shown to be highly effective for the
early treatment of COVID, including hydroxychloroquin and overmectin. So that's
how we got into this. But you know, the hospital
I was that basically much like Amazon banned me, they
(16:33):
banned my protocol which was highly successful. You know, we
looked at my data versus other clinicians data, and the
data suggested we could reduce the risk of hospital death
by at least fifty percent. But that was inconvenient because
I was not using the WHO or H protocols. So
(16:54):
you know, what I've come to discover is that this
is not about doing what's best for the patient. This
is not about optimizing patient outcome. This is not about
helping people. This is about conplex of interest, financial interests,
and power plays.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
Can you recall off the top of your head what
your results were when you first were active with hospital patients.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
Yeah, so you know, it's been debated and Corey and
myself were actually accused of false, falsifying data, and scientific
misconduct because we published the data. So we know that
the hospital mortality from COVID was around twenty percent, we
published data showing that it was in our hands eight percent,
(17:47):
and that eight percent was data I received from the
chief medical officer. He personally gave me the data and
told me that it was about eight percent, and that's
what we published in our papers. So that's a significant reduction.
What they then did after the fact is accused us
of scientific misconduct because they were able to show that
(18:07):
with time the mortality went up to about ten percent.
And obviously if you followed patients for long enough, some
of them will die. But we looked at twenty eight
day mortality, and so based on the complaints of the
hospital and the hospital system, the journal retracted and removed
the paper, accusing us of scientific misconduct. And so even
(18:32):
if one takes a conservative reduction, they claimed it was
ten percent. We know the hospital mortality was about twenty percent.
So at least we were able to show that there
was at least a of the fifty percent reduction in
the risk of death. But that was very inconvenient for them.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Indeed, after the pandemic struck, doctor Merrick wrote to the WHO,
doctor Fauci, the head of the NIH, the head of
New York City's Department of Health, and the health minister
in Lombardy in Italy about his new repurpose drug COVID
protocol pre ivermectin, involving vitamin C cursoritin, zinc, and melatonin.
(19:22):
He explained that lives could be saved by offering this
to patients immediately. Doctor Merrick wrote in his letter, doctor
Fauci and others are promoting the idea of performing randomized
control tests. I believe that is unethical. I believe it's
unethical to do such trials. How can you offer patients
a placebo when testing a drug that you believe may
(19:45):
have clinical efficacy. Every patient needs to get the best
treatment that we can offer. We could expect no less
from our loved ones. Furthermore, once these trials are eventually completed,
we will all be dead or the pandemic will be over.
This does not mean that we should not be studying
the impact of these interventions. Detailed observational studies can provide
(20:07):
useful information. What did you get back from the expert,
doctor Plci? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (20:14):
So please you quoted that because I had forgotten that letter.
We had sent that same letter to hundreds of people,
you know, healthcare administrators, heads of state, the who, and
we did not get a single response, not a single response.
And you know, obviously I'm pretty impressed with what we
(20:35):
wrote that because it holds the same position then as
it does now. The idea of doing a randomized study
when you actually have an effective therapy goes against the
whole hypocratic principle. And so you know, for example, you know,
we developed a protocol for using vitamin C for sepsis,
(20:59):
and we consider doing a randomized study, but my nurses
refused because they could with their own eyes, they could
see how effective vitamins was for treating early sepsis, and
they said, it's unethical. How can you randomize a patient
to get placebo when you know the drug you're giving
is effective. And that's essentially what they were trying to do,
(21:23):
is that, as I said, as a clinician, you give
the patient your your only interest is the patient in
front of you, and you have to do what you
think is in the patient's best interests, and you know,
to randomize them to placebo is completely unethical. And you're
right at the beginning, we were convinced that, you know,
(21:45):
and the data has borne out that for certain vitamin C, zinc,
and vitamin D are really highly effective in preventing and
treating COVID. You know, instead of you know, if if
the health agencies were really concerned about the health of
the elderly people in elderly homes, probably the most important
(22:10):
intervention would have been just to give the vitamin D,
just because we know vitamin D has such potent immunological properties,
and we know if you have a good vitamin D level,
your chances of dying or getting ready sick for COVID
already close to zero. So what they should have just done,
so cheap, so effective, is just given these people vitamin D.
(22:34):
But again it went against the consensus, and nobody makes money.
You know, vitamin D is a over the counter generic drug.
It's exceedingly cheap that one makes money from describing vitamin D.
And there's no question in my mind if we had
gone on a campaign of promoting vitamin D, the mortality
(22:57):
from COVID would have been significantly less.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
What about vitamin C? I would have thought that vitamin
C would have been at the forefront of the medical
professions interest.
Speaker 3 (23:11):
Yeah, so, you know what people don't recognize is that
there are only two species on this planet that don't
make vitamin C when you stressed. So humans and guinea
pigs are the only species that don't make vitamin C?
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Are they one and the same human beings?
Speaker 3 (23:28):
And yeah, sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference between
a guinea pig and a human and that's a good one.
But you know, just from a genetic and evolutionary point
of view, we know humans just don't make vitamin C
when they stressed, and vitamin C is more of a
(23:48):
stress hormone than it is a vitamin and plays a
really important role in the stress response. So it doesn't
really matter what the stress is. It could be psychological stress,
it could be psychiatric stress. It could be stressed because
you writing exams that you you need to produce vitamin C.
(24:11):
And obviously if you're having surgery or have had trauma,
you can't produce vitamin C. Vitamin C is really important
and so that's why, you know, we would suggest any
you know, if you're healthy and you eat a regular diet,
you should get enough vitamin C. But if you stress,
if you're under a stress situation, most definitely you should
(24:35):
supplement with vitamin C.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
I'll ask you a question. Well, I've got a couple
of questions. Actually they fit together. What's the greatest challenge
threat or problem that confronts science medical science in particular,
as that's what we're talking about. Can I make a
suggestion that it's politics.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
Yeah, so you ask a really good question, and it's
really unfortunate. Unfortunately science has been co opted by other
forces politics, finance, power, and so you know, just just
the fact that we're being censored is really a significant
(25:19):
attraction of what science should be. You know, we don't
have to agree. Science is evolving, it changes. I mean
we know that, you know, people did blood letting and
leaches and all kinds of therapies based on what they
at that time, you know, thought was the best therapy.
But science progresses, it's evolving, and so we need to
(25:43):
be able to have differences of opinion, We need to
explore different options. And certainly, once politics gets intertwined in science,
it can only pervert science.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
So my other question is your opinion of Scientific American.
Speaker 3 (26:04):
You mean the journal Scientific Americans. So you know, I
can look at my life at pre COVID and post COVID,
you know, BCAC, and I can say that BC I
used to believe almost everything that came from the medical
journals New England Journal Lands at Scientific America, because that's
(26:28):
what we were led to believe. These people have no
vested interests, there's no conflict of interest, and that the
science is true. I've subsequently discovered that at least eighty five,
maybe ninety percent of published papers of fraudulent, deceptive, dishonest.
And that's very, very disturbing, because if you can't trust
(26:52):
these organizations and these journals, who can you trust? And
so I think people have to, you know, general public,
but particularly doctors and scientists have to be scrupulous in
reviewing papers and understanding that there may be significant amount
(27:12):
of rule that has been perpetuated.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
The reason I asked you that is because less than
an hour ago I got an email that Scientific American
has endorsed Kamala Harris. Now, the reason for that, or
the reasons for that, are fairly obvious. It appears to
me that Scientific American has deserted its platform and is
(27:37):
now engaged in a shall we say, a campaign, a war,
call it whatever you like, along with other experts, and
it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit the role any longer
of one to be trusted. The editorial drew sharp contrast
between Harris and Donald Trump, who they described as one
(28:01):
who quote endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence,
prefer instead nonsensical conspiracy theories. Now, when I read that,
I thought immediately of hydroxychloroquine. I also expressed concern over
Trump's dangerous and disasters record, and particularly his handling of
public health during the COVID nineteen pandemic and his rollback
(28:23):
of environmental protections. If you're interested, a couple of comments
from other people, one being doctor Jordan Peterson an utterly
predictable and worse boring revelation from the pathetic and self
destructive woke mob that captured the magazine that captured the
journal and doctor Gad sad authoritarian leftist partisanship has hijacked
(28:50):
everything academia, science, journalism, medicine, business, law, entertainment, culture, justice system, etc.
So he's an evolutionary behavior scientist for anyone who doesn't know. So,
I've had no faith in those magazines for some time.
Now there's even less reason to have any sort of
(29:11):
faith in them.
Speaker 3 (29:12):
Yeah, So I wasn't aware of this development later, No,
it just happened.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
It's just happened. That's why I thought i'd break the
news to you.
Speaker 3 (29:20):
Yeah, I think it's shocking. I think it's highly disturbing.
There's no question of doubt that medical journals and medical
publications should be completely nonpartisan. They should not be involved
in political dabbling and in quoting or misquoting politicians. Science
(29:41):
is not political. It doesn't matter if you left or right.
Was interested is the scientific truth. And once journals start
dabbling in politics, we go down a very dark road.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
Which we have traveled in this country. And of course
you're aware of it with the previous prime minister and
we were one of the shall we say, worst affected
countries in the world over matters of lockdown.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
Yeah, so you know what you know, as I said before,
we either dividom my life BC and AC and unfortunately,
and I don't think many people appreciate the extent of
the lines that we were told. And so the absurdity
is that doctor Correa myself are quote it has been misinformationist,
(30:35):
but we're in fact telling the truth. And when you
actually look at the truth everything they told us, like
everything was a lie and it was predetermined, you can say,
you know, where did the virus come from? This wasn't
from nature. You can look at the use of masks
we know that there was a complete and out of failure.
It's been well established. But COVID spreads by aerosol, not
(30:58):
by droplets spread, and this has been well defined scientifically.
We knew this in twenty twenty. And if you reckon
that it's spread by aerosols, then it makes masks completely ineffective,
it makes social distancing ineffective, it makes lockdowns completely ineffective.
(31:20):
So what they did was they instituted, were not just
instituted mandated policies that were not based on good science.
And as we know, the consequences have been enormous, particularly
in places like Australia and New Zealand and Canada, where
you know, these draconian measures were enforced with almost military
(31:45):
like activity.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
I want to make mention in passing of doctor Linus Pauling,
and I quote from an artic written by justice not
legal justice, justice Jus t Us Hope m D. He
refers to the IV Vitamin C protocol that you have.
(32:08):
How would you put it just not discovered? What would
you say?
Speaker 3 (32:11):
Yeah, we reinvented it, you know, I mean, so it's
very unusual for someone to invent something is often just
history repeating itself so you know, we put this protocol
together based on you know, his work as well as
other people's work, and you know, we show to be
(32:31):
highly effective.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
So Dr Pauling, well, I'll just back up a little
bit referring to you. Doctor Marrek has enjoyed his reputation
as the most published and influential clinician researcher in critical
care medicine in the United States quote unquote, and for
good reason. Doctor Marek is a giant in the academic
research world, with an H index of one to eleven.
(32:55):
What is an H index?
Speaker 3 (32:58):
Yeah, so an H index is a balance between the
number of papers you've published and the number of times
the papers have been quoted. Because it's all very well
writing a paper, but if people ignore the paper and
you know, don't quote the paper, then it's it means
it's had a low impact. So the H index is
(33:20):
a blend of number of publications and the number of
times it's been quoted. Most noble laureates have an H
index of about forty to fifty. So you know, an
H index of over one hundred year signifies pretty significant
clinical and research productivity.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
So your H index of one hundred and eleven which
placed him in the top percentile of the world's elite
published physitions. This stunned me as I as I read it.
After the way that you've been dealt with. His ivy
vitamin C protocol known as HAT HAT guarded massive attention
(34:05):
with more than eleven hundred anecdotes from physicians around the
world world noting similar almost miraculous results from their septic
shock patients, and then mentions your hospital recorded a drop
in the death rate of of your sepsis patients from
twenty two percent to six percent over the year after
you began using that vitamin C protocol. Now getting back
(34:27):
to Linus Pauling, he also was utilizing the same methodology.
He was afflicted with Bright's disease, a kidney condition at
age forty. He found an unorthodox but effective way to
treat himself using three grams per day of vitamin C. However,
(34:48):
this use of repurposed vitamins threatened the status quo and
was vehemently denounced as quackery. Doctor Merrick has found himself
similarly attacked by various moneyed interests. But the point is
that Linus Pauling kept himself alive for some considerable time
on that exact methodology.
Speaker 3 (35:11):
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, he wasn't a physician.
You know, he was a basic scientist and a physicist,
but he understood the astonishing properties of vitamin C and
he obviously treated himself with vitamin C. And so the
point is that it's a vitamin C is a particularly
(35:32):
safe a drug or mineral or supplement. It's almost impossible
to harm somebody with vitamin C. So you know, you
compare that with many of the common drugs that we
use that have a terrible side effect profile. So you know,
vitamin C is what the big farmer in the industrial
(35:55):
complex despises, something which is cheap, something which is safe,
which has a very favorable side effect profile, and can
be highly effective. It's exactly the kind of pharmaceutical intervention
they despise.
Speaker 2 (36:12):
So just before we move on, I know that you
told this story, well I'm sure that you have told
this story so often, but I would like you to
repeat it, just briefly or otherwise as you want. When
you were in hospital, when you were working in hospital
and you developed this protocol, the seventy three year old
woman who came in on death's or just relate that
(36:37):
experience for us.
Speaker 3 (36:38):
Yeah, and I remember it to this day quite well,
of course. So this was a lady in her seventies
who had severe, overwhelming accepsis and as if I recall,
it was from the billary tract and she was in
established septic shock. Her heart was not functioning, she needed
drugs to support her blood pressure, she need a ventilator
(37:01):
to support her lungs, she needed that dialysis machine to
control kidney failure. And so I knew this woman was
dying from a potentially treatable disease. So, you know, I
scratched my head and I thought, you know, what can
I do? You know, which is what most physicians would do.
(37:24):
You know, you just you got to scratch the barrel.
And I was aware of a physician at the University
of Virginia who had been using vitamin C and I
looked up the dose that he had used, and I thought,
you know what, let me try this. What what do
I have to lose? So I asked the pharmacists did
(37:45):
they have ivy vitamin C? And indeed they did, so
I said, well, you know, could we please give this
the ivy vitamin C to this patient? You know, she's dying,
and I think it can help her. Obviously, I had
no idea what the outcome would be, you know, I
had expected that when I went home, the poor lady
(38:06):
would have passed on, and I was stunned. To say
I was stunned would be an understatement. The next morning
she was sitting up in bed, awake, alert and responsive,
and it was. It was truly one of the most
astonishing things that I had seen. And the nurses, of
course were obviously overwhelmed with happiness and pleasure because they
(38:31):
had seen the miracle of vitamin C in action. And
so obviously once you see something, you say, well it
was it just a fluck? Was she going to get better?
Or is there is this a valid intervention? So we
repeated it, and each time we saw the same thing,
and so we knew that this was a real thing.
(38:54):
What we did, though, which is really important, is that
we treated patients early. So these are patients who came
into the ICU were really sick and they were dying
the same way is you know, as I said, you
don't wait for patients to get sicker, And we gave
the vitamin C immediately upfront, and so there have been
a number of randomized trials which have failed to replicate
(39:17):
what we did, including a study out of Australia. But
what they did in this particular study is they waited
at least twenty four hours after the patient had been
admitted to hospital before they had given the vita C,
which makes absolutely no sense because if you're at risk
of dying, you want to intervene early. As I said before,
(39:39):
there's no disease that benefits from a delay in initiating therapy.
But this was done, we think, by design, to try
and discredit vitamin C. And after that, after that, you know,
we continue to use vitamin C. And we put together
a observational study because my nurses thought it unethical to
(40:03):
do a randomized study. You know, when you know something
is effective, because the nurses could see it, risk of
patients getting kidney failure went down, the use of the
analysis machines went down, the length of stay in the
ICU went down. So we kept on doing this and
we you know, we collected forty eight patients and we
(40:24):
we published the data as an observational study. We used
a retrospective control group and it did, you know, it
did get people's attention, and we know from speaking to
clinicians that the response that we saw was very similar
to what they saw. But again, there were a number
(40:44):
of studies that were designed which we think we're designed
to fail, in which the vitamin C was given very late,
and you know in that situation it's likely to be
less effective. And I think today you know there's still
a lot of interesting vitamin C. Although you know the
powers that we think it's an effective therapy. It's safe,
(41:09):
which is really important. So at worst, what you know,
when where patients called me, I said, well, you know what,
what do you have to lose? All that can happen
is you can say of the patient's life, it's exceedingly
safe and it's cheap. But that goes against you know,
what the pharmaceutical industrial complex is trying to push.
Speaker 2 (41:32):
You came from South Africa and I think ninety five
ninety two.
Speaker 3 (41:36):
If I remember I left just before a part eight
fell apart.
Speaker 2 (41:40):
Well, your memory on that date would be better than mine,
of course, So you moved in ninety two, you discovered
success and recognition, and now you find yourself in a
position of unemployment in what is your career? What you'd
prefer to be doing. How are you well? First of all,
(42:05):
do you have any regrets on moving to America after
after what's happened? And how are you now making a living?
Speaker 3 (42:15):
Yeah, so you asked some good questions. So, you know,
I thought the move to the US was a good move.
It gave me enormous opportunities. I could achieve what I
wanted achieve professionally. But obviously I had no idea what
was in store for me. You know, I thought, if
(42:36):
you were a scientist and you tell the truth, that
people value those characteristics, but certainly not so obviously, you know,
telling the truth. And with COVID, I lost my job,
I lost my license, I lost my hospital privileges. As
you said, the American Board of Internal Medicine decertified me.
(42:59):
So basically the system had made me unemployable, which is,
you know, which is a pity. But you know what, I.
Speaker 2 (43:10):
Don't sound angry.
Speaker 3 (43:14):
You know what I've I missed clinical medicine because that's
what I was. I was a South African doctor who's
got enormous enjoyment and satisfaction from treating patients, you know,
direct patient contact, which I think is so important. But
I've had to kind of reinvent myself. Obviously, financially, I've
(43:39):
taken a big hit, But you know what, money doesn't
buy everything in this world. And so I've found a
new niche of trying to tell the truth as it
goes to cancer, as it goes to diabetes, as it
goes to depression, as it goes to most chronic diseases,
because basically, the healthcare system in the US anyway, and
(44:02):
I would assume in most Western countries, is a system
based on chronic disease. It's a system which promotes sickness,
it promotes the use of medications. It's a sickness system
rather than a healthcare system. And so for many of
the diseases I've mentioned, you know, what they want to
(44:24):
do is get you hooked on medication for life. And
I give you as an example. I was a type
two diabetic and I thought I would have type two
diabetes for the rest of my life and I would
be dependent on, you know, expensive pharmaceutical products. But just
adopting a number of lifestyle changes which are not very difficult,
(44:48):
I was able to cure myself of diabetes. And you know,
you can say the same thing about metabolic syndrome, depression,
many autoimmune diseases that you know, patients can empower themselves
to take control, not to trust the healthcare system. Terrible
(45:08):
thing that I'm saying, and I say this with a
broken heart, that the healthcare system is not a healthcare system.
It's a disease system that's designed to keep you as
sick as you can for as long as they can,
and for them to make as much money as they can.
And so I have evolved, and so I have, you know,
(45:32):
help people, and I think in this role maybe I've
reached more people than I did before.
Speaker 2 (45:38):
And I hope you continue to do so. Guy Hatchett
is an Englishman who book up residents in New Zealand
some considerable time back. He is not a doctor, but
he's a PhD in an associated area. He published something
on and he publishes frequently and he's finding a battle.
(46:00):
But he published something over this last weekend to do
with New Zealand Emergency Department data wire a freedom of
information request to the Health Department or Health New Zealand.
They were asked for the number of people under the
age of forty presenting to emergency departments throughout New Zealand
(46:22):
hospitals with chest pain or heart issues by year, And
here are some quick figures twenty nineteen, twenty two hundred
and nineteen, twenty twenty four, four hundred and six, twenty one,
thirteen thousand and sixty three, twenty two, twenty one thousand,
(46:44):
four hundred and sixteen in twenty three, last year twenty
thousand and five, and so far this year, not so
far to June this year, halfway through the year it
was fourteen thousand, six hundred and thirty nine. How do
those figures affect you? What are your thoughts?
Speaker 3 (47:04):
Yeah, so, I think those figures are alarming and any
health care administrator or any healthcare anyone involved in healthcare
should be shocked by those data because obviously there's something
that's happened in our community that's affecting the health of
young people and their cardiovascular health. And you know, it's
(47:28):
not difficult to know what that intervention is. It certainly
is not climate change. Climate change has not caused all
of these heart attacks and chest pains. There is something
that happened in twenty one, twenty two, twenty three, and
you know, I'll let you guess or your listeners guess
(47:48):
what it was, but that intervention has directly increased the
risk of cardiovascular disease, chest pain, and sudden death. And
it's alarming. And so if healthcare administrators or legislators were
really interested in the healthcare of the community, they would
(48:11):
investigate this in significant depth and to try and figure
out which, we know, what the cause is, the you
know what has happened, and what measures can be taken
to protect these poor people from further quodiovascular events.
Speaker 2 (48:30):
I'll get your opinion. Also on his last short paragraph,
it is so far past time to recognize past mRNA
COVID vaccine harm and the growing dangers ahead, especially as
multiple mRNA vaccines are under development and soon to be
offered to the public. Our government is planning to deregulate biotechnology,
(48:55):
rushing like a must to the flame. This has to
stop now, And you would.
Speaker 3 (49:01):
Say, yeah, I absolutely agree. I mean so obviously, what
I was saying is that there's very good data that
these jabs, these amorina genetic therapy jabs are directly responsible
for the massive increase in a sudden deaths in cardiovascular
events through multiple different pathways. The spike protein is probably
(49:25):
the most toxic protein known to the human body. It
does all kinds of really bad things. A recent paper
in Nature, which is a really reputable journal, so you know,
we're going back to the journals. Can you trust it?
But it actually showed that spike protein directly binds to fibrin,
(49:47):
which is a clotting protein and activates clotting. So you
know that wasn't censored up until now. And so we
know that spike protein causes inflammation of the lining of
the blood vessels, it causes inflammation in krdiac blood vessels,
it causes damage to the heart. So this is a
(50:10):
this is a well documented in the literature observation, and
so it puts the community at increased risk of sudden
cardiac deaths. And we know there's been an explosion of
sudden deaths in young people, which is very, very troubling.
Speaker 2 (50:30):
How many speeches have you given so far? Just the one?
Speaker 3 (50:35):
So in New Zealand, we had an event in christ Church.
I've given you one lecture there, and we have an
upcoming event in Auckland and I'm going to repeat the
same lecture. But you know, I've done many zoom conferences
on this topic, and you know I will continue to
(50:56):
tell the truth. But you know, if people want to disagree,
then that's fine. We can have a civil conversation and
discuss the science, but you can't obliterate what you don't
want to see.
Speaker 2 (51:09):
Any doctors turn up for your christ Church speech, you know.
Speaker 3 (51:14):
Yeah, So surprisingly, their attendance was very good. You know,
I would say fifty percent will maybe lay people, fifty
percent were physicians. And I think, you know, it's a
delight to speak to these people because you feel that
you are you're amongst your brothers and sisters, that you
(51:34):
like minded people, and you can talk to each other.
And it was very enlightening. I think it was enlightening
for me, but for the audience as well. And that's
what we need more of, is let's have open dialogue,
Let's talk to each other. Let's be civil to each other,
rather than all these censorship and recriminations and tapers being
(51:56):
withdrawn and books being banned. I think that's heading in
a really bad direction.
Speaker 2 (52:03):
But it's hitting in that direction along with another a
number of other causes. Shall we say, of those doctors
who turned up for christ Church, did any challenge you? Seriously?
Speaker 3 (52:19):
No, I can't think of this thing. You know, we
had many you know, after the lecture, I spoke to
many physicians and none of them could present, you know,
data which discredited what I had to say. So I
think that they were in full agreement because if you
look at the data they even the data that's published,
(52:41):
it's overwhelming. It's you know, it's very difficult to dispute
the obvious. For example, I can give you quote one
study from the Cleveland Clinic. The Cleveland Clinic is regarded
as one of the most prestigious medical institutions in the world,
and basically what they showed is the more the increasing
(53:04):
number of times you get jabbed, So those patients who
received the most number of vaccinations had the increased risk
of getting COVID. So rather than the jab protecting you,
it seemed that the more times that they received the vaccine,
the more times, the greater their risk of getting COVID,
(53:27):
so that the risk of COVID increased with the number
of jabs. I mean, it's very compelling data.
Speaker 2 (53:36):
I want I want to raise another subject just before
we conclude, and just just get your opinion. So I
asked this as an innocent question, do you have an
opinion on statins.
Speaker 3 (53:59):
So that's a really interesting question. As I say, you know,
I have changed, as is my understanding. I used to
take a statin until they became aware of the staaten hoax.
It's a complete and ut a hoax that these drugs
have significant side effects. In fact, you know, what they
do is interfere with cholesterol synthesis, and the probably the
(54:22):
most important organ that depends on cholesterol is the brain.
The brand has a high cholesterol content, and there's very
good data showing that statins increase your risk of dementia.
We know statins increase the risk of liver disease, statins
increase the risk of muscle disease, but do they protect
(54:43):
And the data suggests that if for primary prophylaxis, the
use of statins has negligible impact, So it increases the
risk of side effects with very little positive benefit. There
may be certain subgroups of patients that may benefit from
(55:04):
a statin for a short time limited trial months, but
these are not drugs that should be given lifelong. It
just so happens that the statin but torvas staaten is
the most commonly prescribed drug in the United States of America.
That's this stranglehold Big Farmat has on the medical system.
(55:30):
We used to think that statan's were effective in preventing
heart disease, but we've now discovered that the converse is true.
Speaker 2 (55:37):
When you say where would where would one find that
information confirmation?
Speaker 3 (55:44):
Yeah, there's actually a few books that have been written
called the Staten Hoax, which I would suggest people read.
You know, obviously, the medical literature, the major medical journals
aren't going to promote this idea, but there have been
meta analyses that have been done published in peer review
journals which actually show that the mortality benefit of of
(56:08):
primary profile acces with statins is close to zero, close
to zero. And we do know that statin's increase, as
I said, the isk of dementia, diabetes, lever disease, muscle disease. So,
you know, the truth ready is important.
Speaker 2 (56:26):
But the eternal question is what is truth? That doesn't
require an answer?
Speaker 3 (56:34):
Yeah, so that's something. Yeah, I mean you ask a
really good question what is the truth? And I think,
you know, I think people need to question everything they
told to, you know, to verify its source and to
verify this scientific rigorousness and just to not you know,
(56:55):
we sew brainwashed we need to start thinking critically and
start using our brain rather than believing everything we told,
and then hopefully we will come to some kind of
a truth.
Speaker 2 (57:09):
Indeed, so finally, Robert Malone, are you friends with him?
Speaker 3 (57:16):
I know Robert quite well. We equaint I would say
we acquaintances rather than good friends.
Speaker 2 (57:23):
Sometimes that's better. He published, and by the way, I've
got I have to say this. I can't accept that
he writes everything himself, or be it accept that he
agrees with it and may even commission it. But he
published a fifty seven page because I got it here.
I printed it a great expense to myself. He published
(57:47):
only a few weeks ago, Packed for the Future, the
Socialist Manifesto fifty seven pages, and it begins September twenty
twenty four. The United Nations will be meeting in New
York to discuss and vote on three new treaties. The
first to be discussed is called the Pact for Future.
(58:09):
I'm not going to insult you all by stating that
or what I think about this document without having presented
the treaty for all of you to pursue. Keep in
mind that this is just one of three treaties or
packs up for votes and signing at the UN end
of September. That's by way of introduction to what I've
received again. Only this morning, the UN just adopted the
(58:33):
Pact for the Future, which lays the foundation for a
new global order. That's what it says, a new global order.
You have any comment to make on the UN, the
who and where they're headed.
Speaker 3 (58:47):
I think it's terrifying, and I think we should be
do whatever we can to speak to people in government,
speak of people in power, Speak to our legislators that
the WH and the UN need to take their fingers
out of our lives, you know, that they should not
be dictating how we live, where we love, what we eat.
(59:10):
And I think this one power government is a very
dangerous slippery slope and we should be outraged.
Speaker 2 (59:20):
And yet it hardly gets any mention, any discussion in
the mainstream media. It is something that seems to be
or seems to fit in with the general acceptance of
what is yet to come.
Speaker 3 (59:36):
Yeah. Absolutely, I think it's imperative that more people are
aware of where the U, N and w H is going,
and we need to do whatever we can to prevent.
You know, we need to restore democracy we need to
restore human dignity, we need to restore you know, human individuality,
(59:59):
and we're going down a terrible slippery slope.
Speaker 2 (01:00:03):
Well you said, we not just on a pass. You're
well on the on the way to shall I say,
the nation that is to be admired and you are
to be congratulated. Thank you so much for the time
you've given. Glad you made it to New Zealand, and
I hope the rest of your journey and your speeches
(01:00:23):
are successful.
Speaker 3 (01:00:25):
Well, thank you kindly. It's been a delight speaking with
you and I've really enjoyed it, and so thank you kindly.
Speaker 2 (01:00:33):
My pleasure, and I speak on behalf of some considerable
thousands of people.
Speaker 3 (01:00:39):
Thank you so much, Paul, thank you, my friend.
Speaker 2 (01:01:04):
All Right, two hundred and fifty seven is the podcast number,
missus producer. Here we are Layton. Hello, So from James
once again Professor Jeffreysax with a clear exposition of the
current state of the world, together with some very relevant
and relatively recent economic history. We hope that you can
(01:01:24):
find the time to listen because it helps to understand
the dangerous debarcles in progress. It seems almost everywhere we
can only hope that in the not two distant future,
the US realizes the mess it's made of the last
eighty years and has a sea change in its policy outlook.
For one thing, the US dollar will soon no longer
(01:01:46):
be capable of being weaponized, and for another, the US,
if it's going to survive as the same democratic society
that it has been, it must put its energies, all
of them, into paying down its colossal debt and drastically
overhauling its governance so that it is once more governed
by elected officials instead of the faceless, unelect did suits
(01:02:09):
currently heading the country toward economic and nuclear arm again,
the world will be a very different place, peaceful and
prosperous instead of featuring constant belligerents and ongoing financial crises.
Once again, with all the best wishes and lots of
love from us. In El Raetiro, Columbia.
Speaker 4 (01:02:29):
Leighton Rod says, it's been a while since I tuned
into your podcasts. Perhaps the relief of last October's election
results swayed me to have a break thinking Labour's toxic
ideology no longer had to be discussed on your show anymore,
But there are many other toxic ideologies in this world
to discuss, unfortunately, and one of them is Kamala Harris
(01:02:50):
and whether she is a Marxist or something else. Your
guest professor Michael Recton World was more of the view
she was a globalist and a Marxist, though both positions
can be interchangeable in my view, So the verdict might
still be out on just what exactly is Kamala's ideology.
But what is evident to me is Kamala Harris's disdain
(01:03:12):
for the traditional family unit and America's Christian heritage, which
are the backbones of American society. If Kamala wins the presidency,
these two sacred values will be weakened even more. Maybe
Kamala is just an empty head idealist who stands for
everything other than America's traditional values.
Speaker 2 (01:03:31):
That was from rod Ron. Certainly can't. I cannot agree
with the last sentence apart from the airhead part from Paul,
and this is producing this is you want to share
this with me because it's so long. I'll read the
first half and you can read the same. Okay, I
think it might be worthy pre covid I considered myself,
writes Paul, conservative realist with a more than passing interest
(01:03:55):
in US politics and an admiration for what Trump managed
to do to get himself elected in twenty sixteen. I
also had a significant disdain for a deerm and the
collective of incompetent I dealists who formed her government post COVID.
My family considered me a conspiracy theorist. I, like Trump,
(01:04:16):
called bs On the man made climate change hoax and
was never COVID vaxed the rabbit hole trifector. When it
comes to the current election cycle in the US, I
listen with interest to you and your guests when comments
are made around the outcome and some speculation whether there
is a parallel between Adern and Harris personally, I don't
(01:04:38):
see one as far as influencing the election result. A
Dern never won that election. Bill English did, but the
two comrades are definitely cut from the same cloth when
it comes to being communist, progressive grifters, and economically illiterate.
A Trump victory is imperative, but the deep state can't
(01:04:59):
allow it. Trump knows too much from his first term
for a second go round and is a legitimate threat
to them. They know that he won't make the same
mistake twice, will make that plural mistakes twice and the
construct of a Trump cabinet. I await with anticipation Kennedy
in charge of the CDCFDA is or the CIA, Gavin
(01:05:22):
and Musk actively involved in a realignment. Hold on while
I grab some popcorn. I do not believe the current
nat can take it over there.
Speaker 4 (01:05:35):
I don't believe the current mainstream polls. And think back
to podcast two four nine with Patrick Basham. Oh, I
don't believe the current mainstream poles and think back to
podcast two four nine with Patrick Basham. Are you going
to have them back for an update towards the end
of October? By the way, what I see and what
we're being told don't gell. Look at the visibly increased
(01:05:58):
support Trump is receiving from the rank and file teamsters,
the firemen, and predict police, border security, black Hispanic men,
to name just a few voting blocks. The allegedly close
poles don't make sense. In twenty sixteen, the Poles had
Trump seventeen points behind in Wisconsin, and he won there.
We may not see such a discrepancy example this time around,
(01:06:22):
but equally, the legacy media outlets will not and cannot
show Trump leading against Harris, as it would not reflect
their efforts and narrative to turn her from the least
popular VP ever a month ago into some sort of
savior of mankind. Sadly, there are many who blindly believe
the propaganda.
Speaker 2 (01:06:42):
JD.
Speaker 4 (01:06:42):
Vance said an Attacker Carlson interview this week that their
own internal polling shows them winning. He would say that,
and I believe him. The Trump groundswell is undeniable. However,
I am very concerned that a Trump victory cannot be
tolerated by those with everything to lose, and the assassination
attempts will continue until they get it right. Finally, anyone
(01:07:05):
who thinks that Harris wasn't fed the questions beforehand at
the debate is delusional.
Speaker 2 (01:07:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (01:07:11):
Compare her coherent rehearsed answers at the debate after weeks
of preparation to her Oprah interview and other post debate
friendly softball interviews resulting in nonsensical word salad answers. And
you don't need to be Einstein to see it doesn't
add up in my view, if Trump can make it
(01:07:32):
to In my view, if Trump can make it to
November the fifth, unscathed. He will be forty seven and
a clear electoral college victory, as I believe the turnout
for him will be too big to rig. I thoroughly
enjoy your work each week, long Matte continue, Thank you
so much, Paul, Well.
Speaker 2 (01:07:52):
Very good, bit long, but very good. I thought there
was a clever way to deal with myself.
Speaker 3 (01:07:57):
Now.
Speaker 2 (01:07:57):
As for Patrick Basham, if my memory serves me correctly,
he will be on next week and he will be
on wait for it, election day. Election day is a
Wednesday our time, so on that day I anticipate the
podcast could be a little late in coming out, but
think about it, it usually goes out mid afternoon. Now
(01:08:20):
in mid afternoon, it's around what time is it about
eleven pm on the East coast, So it could all
slide together very well, but her final details are yet
to be sorted. I saw Carmela Harris and her running
mate at a rally coming together on stage in what
(01:08:40):
could only be called a political pantomime, and it was
embarrassing to see, you think, I thought it couldn't get worse,
but it did. When they spoke, they seemed to talk
about themselves first in such a cringe worthy way, so much.
They had trouble getting past it with any coherent thought.
It was like watching a comedy show on TV where
(01:09:03):
you guess whether the speaker is lying or not or
just doesn't know what they're talking about. Now, when Carmala
Harris's face lights up in an interview, you just know
she's going to repeat one of her fables and throw
in some fabrications as an extra good at that, Carmala
Harris and her running mate can't seem to get their
message across adequately of what's good for the country like Trump.
(01:09:29):
Maybe the Democrats going woke might go broke. Oh, there's
more and more people coming out of the woodwork on
both sides of this. I have some references to pass
on to you.
Speaker 4 (01:09:42):
Shortly, latent Jin says, I believe you'll appreciate this short
one minute talk TV UK video where consumer expert Adrian
Mills gave one of the greatest arguments for why using
cash helps you save money and it's sure and sure
it holds its value compared to using cashless methods which
banks profit from. In case you have trouble opening the video,
(01:10:05):
here is the transcript. So this is what the consumer
experts says. I'll tell you why it's so important that
people use cash. For example, I have in front of
me a good old fifty pound note. I owe you
fifty pounds. I pay you. You go to the hairdresser,
You pay your fifty pounds. The hairdresser goes to the cafe,
pays the coffee shop owner fifty pounds. The cafe owner
(01:10:29):
goes to the restaurant owner fifty pounds. The restaurant pays
for the linen cleaning fifty pounds. The value of the
fifty pounds remains fifty pounds. If, however, I pay you
with a credit card straight away, I'm devaluing that fifty
pounds because I am paying three percent on average interest
to a bank or a society that gives me that card,
(01:10:50):
which is the equivalent of one pound fifty. You then
follow that through and everywhere you go, the hairdresser, the
coffee shop, the restaurant. If you're paying the card, you're
losing one pound fifty every time. So after thirty transactions
with cash, you've still got fifty pounds in bad. If
you used your credit card, the value is now five
(01:11:13):
pounds because you've paid the bank forty five pounds in fees,
and that's why the banks want to encourage you to
go cashless. Don't allow it to happen. This is why,
says Jin, we shouldn't allow banks or politicians to coerce
us into becoming a cashless and CBDC society. Cash is king,
(01:11:34):
cash is freedom. Thanks to your constant reminder Latent regarding
the importance of having cash in hand, I've always had
about two hundred dollars cash in my wallet just in case.
Speaker 2 (01:11:46):
And I congratulate you on that too. And I think
that at the very end of our discussion today, the
good doctor gave us some thinking material. Well, like I say,
right at the very end, he's he's very concerned about
where things are heading. And these not alone, missus producer.
(01:12:07):
I've got some two more, but they're so short.
Speaker 4 (01:12:10):
You do short one and I was a short one.
Speaker 2 (01:12:12):
Oh you okay? Right from Chris. Since education contributes to
your podcast subject matter, you may be interested in Twin
Oaks charter school, proposed to start next year in green
Lane and Auckland. The main difference is the hybrid approach.
You know how that works where parents are the teachers
for two days a week and the classroom learning for
(01:12:34):
the other three and then gives me some contact details.
If I'm want to take it any further, it may
well do. And from Jim, I'm looking forward to hearing
your USA electoral discussion that no doubt you will have
love all your broadcast. Jim, appreciate that. Thank you and
you'll get it.
Speaker 4 (01:12:53):
And later. From James, I've just listened to your fascinating
interview with Michael recton World. This was the first I
had heard about the ABC's whistleblower regarding the debate. I
did a Google search on the topic, and surprise, surprise,
despite lots of overseas coverage, I could not find any
local reports on the matter, despite it being big news.
Maybe I haven't looked hard enough, so I'll eat my
(01:13:15):
hat if I'm wrong. Otherwise, it's just another reason to
look for information and use from other sources and take
what we see at six o'clock each night with a
grain of salt.
Speaker 2 (01:13:26):
That's from James, James, Thank you, missus, producer, thank you.
Speaker 3 (01:13:29):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (01:13:30):
Until next week, Thanks Leighton, it will last week. In
(01:13:53):
the Putting Together Podcast two fifty six, I made yet
another comment on how much of interest there was that
particular morning that I couldn't cover. Couple that with inquiries
about various issues and what books i'd recommend, it occurred
that I could and should share information more willingly. Protecting
(01:14:13):
your sources has always been well important to varying degrees
in the media, but it no longer matters so much.
I came to the conclusion that information sharing is not
any beneficial, but is necessary. Well, I've known that for
a while, but haven't activated on it as much as
I might have. Well, of course, being first with well
(01:14:35):
being first, people like to be first, doesn't matter what
it's in. Competition builds when somebody invents something, or says something,
or writes something or whatever, and you lose track of
who was responsible for it. But being first is not vital,
but it helps. I decided that I would introduce a well,
(01:14:56):
not a segment, but maybe it is. Maybe we'll call
it that, in which I will share some sources of information,
sources of opinion, fact whatever that I think will be
of interest to well some, not everybody all at once,
but some from week to week. And as it happens,
(01:15:17):
the first email that I opened up this morning was
from Jeffrey Tucker. This wasn't personal this is Jeffrey Tucker
writing his column for the Epic Times. But the interesting
thing to me was I believed that it was only
last week that I read a letter from a listener,
a very loyal one, i might add, who commented that
(01:15:37):
Jeffrey Tucker and George Friedman were two people that had
helped direct his understanding and appreciation of geopolitics and other
matters of life. And what is the column in the
Epic Times called from Jeffrey Tucker? Why is the age
of information disappointing intriguing her? It must have been remarkable
(01:15:58):
to be alive between eighteen eighty and nineteen ten. The
explosion of technology, then called the practical arts was astonishing.
In the course of this time, we saw the commercializer
of steel that made possible huge bridges to transverse large
bodies of water for the first time, and allow the
building of skyscrapers that change cityscapes. And suddenly you could
(01:16:19):
go anywhere and do anything. Then there's a whole list
of things that wants a short list. But of things
that he refers to, there was the advent of electricity
to light up cities and homes. There was internal combustion
that allowed for motor cars that change travel and the
practice of farming. There was flight, which made not fleeing aeroplanes,
which made the seemingly impossible possible. Communications changed first with
(01:16:46):
the telegraph and then the telehne, which introduced the real
first upgrade in information spread since the handwritten letter carried
on horseback. And there was so much more, including indoor plumbing,
the wide availability of books, the bringing of precision time
into the home with commercial clocks and then watches, the
recording and eventual broadcast of sale, and so much more. Now,
(01:17:10):
the point that Jeffrey Tucker makes is a very important
and that is that information doesn't mean wisdom that takes
more input. But the important fact of this particular column
this morning, I think is obvious. So every week as
part of the podcast, I'll introduce you to some sources
that I think are worthy of follow up entirely up
(01:17:34):
to you, obviously, Let's begin with one of my favorites,
of course, Victor Davis Hansen. In just a second. First,
here is a headline over seven hundred deep status join
Dick Cheney, Iran and IRS union in endorsing Harris in
(01:17:55):
a surprise to No. One seven hundred and forty one
high ranking national security officials have endorsed Kamala Harris's bid
for the White House, with some suggesting that former President
Trump has a scary authoritarian streak. Now that's only by
way of introduction. I'm not going to read anymore, but
(01:18:16):
let's get to let's get to a reaction to this
from Victor Davis Hanson. Are so called experts and their
silly group speak letters. One of the most prepasitorous recent
trends has been the political use of supposed expert letters
and declarations of support from so called authorities. These pretentious
(01:18:39):
testimonies of purported professionalism are different from the usual inane
candidate endorsements from celebrities and politicos. Instead, well, if you
want to find out you you'll find it at am
greatness dot com. Am greatness dot com are so called
(01:19:01):
experts and their silly group speak letters. Published on the
twenty third of September, well worthy of digesting then speaking
of media and sharing information and getting it right, etc.
There's an article ausored by Frank Mela m E.
Speaker 3 (01:19:19):
L E.
Speaker 2 (01:19:20):
Frank Mela via Real Clear Politics, Young America is right
to reject traditional news. It's become a truism in the
past few years that younger people get their news predominantly,
if not entirely, from social media. Turns out it's true,
but it may not be an information crisis as some
(01:19:41):
of you would have thought. Of course, as an old
time newspaper man, I was one of those who thought
that the country was not being served well by this
increasing dependency on unvettered news sources and the implied repudiation
of traditional media. And I'll leave that one there too,
Frank melay Mi E l E real clear politics. All
(01:20:04):
you need to do, really is is search young America
is right to reject traditional news. Frank Mila next, and
just this concentrates mainly on aspects of the United States
and the influence. And this is the important part as
far as I'm concerned, the influence that America has. It
(01:20:24):
is still the richest country in the world. It is
the most influential country in the world when it chooses
to be the moment they're lacking somewhat in a number
of areas. The Dangers of Uncontrolled Immigration by Raphael Madagi B. A. R.
D Aji brd Aji as of June seven, twenty twenty four,
(01:20:51):
for the first time in the history of Spain, the
prison population of young people born abroad exceeds that of
young Spaniards in prison at a ratio of sixty to forty.
If we include those born in Spain with Spanish nationality
but to foreign parents, that ratio pockets to over seventy
over thirty. Now, this is a six page article, the
(01:21:15):
point being that it covers much more than you might expect,
and there are lessons in it for every country on Earth,
well every country that people want to move to in
great numbers. The dangers of uncontrolled immigration a Spain and
Europe are suffering from a far worse case than countries
(01:21:36):
like New Zealand. But New Zealand has things to learn.
We have things to learn from the experience of these
other events in other countries. America and the Future of
Globalism by Edward Ring, again from am Greatness. If globalization
is the economic integration of nations in a world where
technology has all but a raised once formidable barriers to
(01:21:59):
long distance communication and transportation, globalism is its cultural and
ideological counterpart. Globalism, like communism or neol liberalism, is beautiful.
Is beautiful. You might walk there when described in these
abstract terms and not rooted in the real world anyway. Again,
(01:22:21):
it's a four page article, and again it's worthy of
your reading. Stockman David who was involved first of all
with the Reagan administration. Stockman, what the coming US election
means for America's physical future. Now, why would I include that? Well, A,
because it's interesting. Be because considering the US's importance in
(01:22:46):
the world. It was in the financial world. It has
an effect on the rest of the world, and that
includes New Zealand of course. And these are things that
I think we miss from time to time, the effect
that something that happens in an important part of the
world will have here you might you might fall into
that category of missing the point, but some people do.
(01:23:10):
And then finally, for this week, the un Machinery against
Human Rights an article that runs eleven pages from the
Brownstone Institute Brownstone dot org and co authored by our
friend David Bell. And this is essential, I think for
all of us to be aware of. I read everything
(01:23:31):
that David Bell is responsible for. He's been on the podcast,
as you would know, on three or four occasions, and
he is a man of some considerable wisdom. He's Australian
by the way, not American, or that he lives in
Texas and on some occasions I'm envious. Would you like
one more? The Sins of the Old Gray Lady or
(01:23:52):
Why the Press Hates You? I may have made mention
of this somewhere in a podcast in passing, but nevertheless,
The Sins of the Gray Lady or Why the Press
Hates You? Authored by j header p ed E r
zay z An via Real Clear Politics, and the following
(01:24:13):
is a chapter from the recently released book Against the
Corporate Media. Forty two Ways the Press Hateship? Again worthy
of attention or I wouldn't include it? There is one
more September twelve. The Leviathan has not been tamed. The
Leviathan has not been tamed. For forty years, US courts
(01:24:36):
have deferred to unelected bureaucrats for the interpretation of ambiguous statutes.
The principle of Chevron deference is the legal basis of
the administrative state, the extra constitutional rule by experts that
provides the legal framework and the worker day operations of
(01:24:57):
the woke regime. You can see why I have thrown that,
thrown that in. The Leviathan has not been tamed and
we are in a position to be able to appreciate
that now. I'd be very interested to hear from those
of you who might follow up on any of those
and whether or not you think this is worthy of
a tension each week I do so I shall continue,
(01:25:19):
but your your thoughts would be most welcome. Laton at
newstalkzeb dot co dot nz or Carolyn at Newstalk zb
dot co dot NZB. And I keep saying that we
love getting your mail. That really takes us out for
podcasts two hundred and fifty seven, So the only thing
left to say is, as always, thank you for listening
(01:25:42):
and we shall talk soon.
Speaker 1 (01:25:51):
Thank you for more from Newstalk ZEDB. Listen live on
air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with our podcast on iHeartRadio