All Episodes

November 12, 2024 90 mins

Since 2020, the W.H.O. has orchestrated and condoned one of the most devastating assaults on individual and societal health the world has seen.

At the behest of highly conflicted sponsors, this international bureaucracy promoted policies that overwhelmingly harmed the world’s disadvantaged.

Lacking any contrition, the W.H.O. is now seeking increased public funding through misrepresentation of risk and return on investment to entrench this response.

The past, present and future of the World Health Organisation, addressed with David Bell, former medical officer and scientist at the W.H.O.

And is Shane Jones right to be concerned about New Zealand’s participation?

Finally, we visit The Mailroom with Mrs Producer.

File your comments and complaints at Leighton@newstalkzb.co.nz

Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide.

Listen here on iHeartRadio

Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:
To subscribe via iTunes click here

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mark as Played
Transcript

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 be
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. Off down the Layton Smith
podcast powered by news Talks It.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Be Welcome to podcasts two hundred and sixty five and
November thirteen, twenty twenty four. How well We're governed is
entitled to be an open, continuous question. Political competence is
never guaranteed. Complacency is too easy a position to settle
in which states the case for the need for skeptics.

(00:48):
Whether it's New Zealand, Australia, Britain, America, the principles are
the same that I leave out Canada. Now that DJ
Trump has been re elected, is no reason to relax
and expect all aspects of administration to be perfect. There's
always something capable of dispensing unexpected issues, such as the

(01:10):
World Health Organization. Here are two headlines Shane Jones World
Health Organization needs reform, not fattening zecond aheader New Zealand First,
fears over who regulations are misplaced, Robust checks and balances
already exist and here is a giveaway that is halfway

(01:32):
down the page. You can trust this article because it's
written by academics, really, but you get the picture. Looks
all sounds like the ultimate pulpits of truth. Now in
the interview to follow with doctor David Bell, who has
been on the podcast on a few occasions now, and

(01:52):
if you wonder why, the answer is because I appreciate
his opinions. Discussion covers what I've already mentioned and a
whole lot more. I think the best way I can
describe it is it is and will be enlightening. Now
brief to another matter. I quote you Neil ferguson the historian.

(02:12):
Trump's victory is a blow to political lawfare, critical race theory,
woke campuses, legacy media, and Hollywood. It's also a win
for a new generation of builders like Elon Musk. Now,
after the mail room, we shall indulge in a little
more on Trump's triumph last week, but in a moment David.

Speaker 3 (02:34):
Bell Layton Smith.

Speaker 2 (02:45):
Leverix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality.
Leverix relieves hay fever and skin allergies or itchy skin.
It's a dual action antihistamine and has a unique nasal
decongested action. It's fast acting for fast relief and it
works in under an hour and lasts for over twenty

(03:06):
four hours. Leverrix is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose,
deals with itchy eyes, and stops sneezing. Levericks is an
antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality. So next
time you're in need of an effective antihistamine, call into
the pharmacy and ask for Leverix l e v Rix

(03:27):
Leverix and always read the label. Takes directed and if
symptoms persist, see your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland. David Bell,
Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician
a biotech consultant in global health. David is a former

(03:49):
medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization, the
WHO Program head for Malaria and febrile Diseases at the
Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics in Geneva, and Director of
Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good in Bellevue

(04:10):
in Washington State in the United States. He is also
a guest on this podcast, has been a guest on
this podcast more than once, twice, three, maybe four times.
And it's very good to welcome you back. I'm appreciative
of the fact that you are here. Yeah, thanks for
having me back late. It is always interesting, it is

(04:32):
always a pleasure. I got to say, what a quote.
I want to quote a lot of things actually in
this podcast, but let me start with an example of destructive,
unaccountable bureaucratic overreach, which is part of what you opened
up with for a column on Brownstone. An example and
I repeat it, of destructive, unaccountable bureaucratic overreach. Are you

(04:57):
taking a stronger stance over I won't say against, but
over the World Health Organization?

Speaker 3 (05:04):
Now, I don't think so. I've I think for the
last four years, I've been pointing out what is going on.
I mean, in the end, you have an organization that
has knowingly impoverished the world and that they absolutely knew
what they're doing. And it's I think most of your
viewers probably don't understand the extent of an additional one

(05:28):
hundred million plus people in severe poverty through deprivation, up
to ten million girls in additional in child marriage, increased
child labor, a huge increase in national debt, in low
income countries, which will translate into them being forced to
comply with global predators who prey on such in derbted countries.

(05:49):
And this is what has happened. I think now it's
interesting because that there's a chance at least something may
change slightly with the US election. So it's but I
think those words are not out of sync with what've
and others have been saying for quite a while. I

(06:10):
was going to is a massive organization, is a huge bureaucracy,
It's grossly out of touch with reality, and it is
deliberately misleading countries.

Speaker 2 (06:20):
I was going to raise the American election result with
you a little later, so let's just park it for
the moment, because there is probably a little more than
just this to discuss. I want to quote you this
particular headline, followed by another one New Zealand first, fears

(06:41):
over who regulations are misplaced, robust checks and balances already exist,
and then the second headline is Shane Jones world health
organization needs reform not fappening.

Speaker 3 (06:56):
Now.

Speaker 2 (06:57):
These are two at variance commentaries. One is written by journalists,
the other is written by well politician, which one of
those is closer to the reality.

Speaker 3 (07:09):
Or clearly the second one. I think that's time I
was on this program where I was we were talking
about the work of the University of Leeds, where we're
looking at the International Pandemic Agenda, the push by WHO,
World Bank, G twenty, et cetera to increase funding from
countries from taxpayers for this rapidly growing bureaucracy around pandemics

(07:32):
and supposedly increasing pandemic risk, and where we've shown conclusively
that this is well as WHO would term it misinformation.
They are twisting the reality around infectious disease, pandemic risk
and the costs of dealing with it and the effect
that would have. But journalists, I think, by and large

(07:55):
don't dig into things like that anymore. They just assume
if the World Bank or the G twenty says something,
it must be true. So I'm not defending journalists, but
I think that's probably where those sorts of responses come from.
So I mean, when that is happening, when the WHO
is doing that as well, then clearly what change journes

(08:17):
it makes sense that the WHO is it is a
huge It's not just a WHO, but the whole intershal
health bureaucracy is tens of thousands of people.

Speaker 2 (08:27):
Now.

Speaker 3 (08:28):
It is a huge and rapidly growing industry that lives
mostly off taxpayer money and mostly in very wealthy countries,
and as we saw in COVID, is now no longer
really helping, but is increasing the risk of port health

(08:49):
and impoverishing people, concentrating wealth in the pharmaceutical companies that
have very much become influential in it. What these organizations
should be doing is helping countries when they're asked to
build capacity so that we don't need these organizations anymore.
So that's the op they shouldn't be growing. You know,

(09:11):
there was a who is set up in the late
nineteen forties. It was helping countries that came out of
colonialism to sort of get on their feet deal with
major diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and now those what should
be happening is us countries should be getting on their feet,

(09:32):
so we shouldn't need the WHO anymore in anything like
you know, as a large organization, you can have a
place where countries meet and so on, but there isn't
a place for a growing international health bureaucracy. If we
are getting better at medicine in countries and we're building capacity,

(09:53):
and sanitation is getting better, and nutrition is getting better,
et cetera. It should be. And if that's still not
the case, if we're seventy or eighty years into WHO
and they are seeing the problems are growing and not
reducing despite all the improvement in technology and everything in
the world, then clearly they're a gross failure anyway, So

(10:16):
we should be looking at something else.

Speaker 2 (10:18):
Since twenty twenty, the WHO has orchestrated and condoned one
of the most devastating assaults on individual and societal health
the world has seen. At the behest of highly conflicted sponsors,
this international bureaucracy promoted policies that overwhelmingly harmed the world's
most disadvantage. The organization turned on those whom it had

(10:40):
been set up to serve. Returning to the pre World
War II mindset of technocratic authoritarianism that characterize public health
in the area of eugenics, colonialism, and European fascism. Now
those last three terms are things that those of the
left regale against constantly, and yet here we are, and

(11:04):
here you are writing that about an organization that we
all know the bureaucracies either live by growth or die
by the growth. So is it fair to say that
they're simply thinking of survival.

Speaker 3 (11:23):
The thing of growth. Yeah. So the demos are organization
of thousands of people, and there's still people there who
are working hard and doing useful stuff. It's not like
the whole organization is completely corrupted, but I think at
the top of the policy level it has been for
the last several years. And you know, I mentioned some

(11:46):
of the numbers in COVID. Then the abandonment of science
in COVID, which was gross, the abandonment of pretending that
mass work and social distincting and pretending that you should
close stop travel when you've got the same virus on
both hents of the travel path and the essential completely

(12:07):
district guard for human immunity natural immunity. We had the
most expensive of public health program in Africa or mass
vaccination when who knew from their own studies that almost
the whole population already had effective immunity against COVID from

(12:28):
natural infection. So it's an organization which there's thousands of people.
If you're in an organization for twenty or thirty years,
inevitably you sort of lose the edge of the good
intent you might have gone in with, and you become
you want your pension, which is very extremely good at

(12:49):
who so you want to hang out for that, So
you want to comply. You have your kids in high
school or college or whatever, and they get a seventy
five percent education subsidy, you get a rental subsidy, you
get very good salary. On top of all this, you
get business class travel, five star hotels or the rest
of it. You inevitably, almost everyone, I think, start to

(13:12):
think that you're one, you're really important, more important than
other people because you've paid so well when you travel
in important aircraft seats and get picked up by cars
with a blue badge on the door. And secondly, oh,
you see it in all institutions, I think the role
of the institution, or the existence and the reputation the

(13:35):
institution becomes your primary focus because you think that the
world needs your institution and therefore you must protect it.
So you know, this is the sort of thing that
is the effect of the Catholic Church, for instance, with
the cover up of child sexual abuse in the past,
and you see the same thing in the un actually

(13:57):
for exactly the same issue, or really the Human Rights
Council has been guilty of this in Central African Republic
about ten years ago. So you tend to put your
your organization first and not the supposed goal of the organization.
And yeah, I don't know of any bureaucracy anywhere that
has worked to put itself out of existence, because that

(14:19):
means losing your salary, losing the salary of your team.
But if you're an international organization that is a servant
of countries and a servant of populations and your job
is to build their capacity, that is actually what you
should do. So I can imagine you could struct an
organization to do that. It's probably something where people can
only say five or ten years, and they have to

(14:40):
rotate out anyway, so it doesn't become their permanent home.
But once you allow an organization to become a permanent
home for a large bureaucracy, it's not going to work
its way out of assistance. It's going to look to grow,
because that's just what human institutions do. And in Who's case,
to grow it meant throwing away essentially a lot of

(15:02):
the conflict of interests rules that they had in the
past and getting to bed with large corporations and private
sector investors, and so about twenty five percent of their
budget now is directly from or in directly from private sector,

(15:23):
and most of their budget, whether from countries or private sector,
is specified so that the funder tells you what you
would do with that money. That's not how WHO started.
It was supposed to be an organization where technical expertise,
at the request of countries would be used to address
the needs of those countries. It's become, through its budget,

(15:46):
an organization that follows the instructions of those who are
giving it money. And that happens because you keep thinking
more money will be good, and you're you know you're
capable of handing the conflict of interest bit and you
won't be corrupted a sea, But of course you are,
because you know that to get refunded next year, you
have to please that funder. So when I worked in WHO,

(16:09):
I saw this growing. I started in about two thousand
and two worked there for about eight or ten years,
and this was a period particularly where private foundations became
very influential, where the probably private partnerships alongside WHO grew
up and became influential on it and the COVID response

(16:29):
is inevitable. Result of that. It was essentially restructuring response
to outbreaks in order to maximize profit through mass vaccination
forever a disease that almost really almost no one should
have been needed to be vaccinated. So the reason for that,

(16:50):
and the reason they abandoned their old guidelines and did
that was because that was what they needed to do
to please their funders. So it's who is a tool
of others. It's supposed to be a tool of countries,
and it should be a temporary tool until the country
stand on their own feet. Has become a fol of
the pharmaceutical industry and biotech and those who invest in it. Yeah,

(17:15):
so I think you know, Shane Jones is arriets. It
is not contributing. Now, there's no reason for it to
grow because actually infectious disease mortality has been steadily declining
to spital the hype, and over the last many decades,
the mortality from outbreaks and from pandemics has been declining.

(17:40):
So COVID was an outlier which very likely was not
a natural outbreak, and certainly many of the deaths from
covid iatrogenic. There's really little doubt about that with the
mass use of drugs like remdeser beere and very early
intubation early on in the pandemic, so people panicked. They

(18:03):
did that. That happened because there was a huge media
operation to make people panic. And the now mortality is
almost zero, and most of that is from people gaining
well one from people gaining natural immunity too, because if
you just leave it as you would treat a common cold,
then for the vast majority of the population, that'll be

(18:23):
what it is. So it was used as a tool
to please these funders. But apart from that, there is
very little in the way of our breaks astray, the
mass cholera immortality, the plague, that yellow fever and so on.
We have very small outbreaks. Now these are things of

(18:43):
the past. So there's no good reason for the WHA
to be growing at all. It should be shrinking.

Speaker 2 (18:50):
But it's not going to.

Speaker 3 (18:52):
It's not going to unless there's a radical change in
the way it's run. And it is hard to see
how that would happen because an organization like that, you've
got to do that change to a large extent through
people there who would be extremely resistant.

Speaker 2 (19:09):
I know that we've discussed this before from one aspect anyway,
But let me let me just raise it again. What
would be the I'm going back to the conflict between
Shane Jones just to use this as an example and journalists,
because the journalists are pretty much all the same. They're

(19:30):
they're the same over the over the American election as well.
They can't help themselves. But if New Zealand were to
not participate in the in the changes that are being
made by the World Health Organization, what would be the downside?

Speaker 3 (19:46):
None for New Zealand, it would save some money and
it would not be essentially forced to build a large
surveillance network to find viral variants and then risk you know,
being having to lock down and destroy your economy again
to assuage the needs of in Geneva. So there are

(20:10):
plenty of diseases for New Zealanders to deal with. Most
people die of cancer, heart disease, cutting, vascular disease, et cetera.
There are still significant rheumatic heart disease and other infection
based mortality in all populations, in particularly indigenous populations around
the Pacific and so on. There's plenty for New Zealand

(20:32):
to do without participating in a sort of essentially fast
this falsification of risk. So there's nothing that would matter
unless you got to a situation where the World Bank
and the IMF, who are very on board with this
agenda of who decided to punish New Zealand. And New

(20:55):
Zealand now I think has a very large initial debt
which would encouraging the COVID response like many countries, so
that makes you much more vulnerable to that. So that's
I mean, we'll come back to the US, but this
is where it'll be interesting to see whether the international
political situation has changed such that you can't be punished

(21:18):
for that, because that will take a lot of the
wind out of the sales of the pandemic.

Speaker 2 (21:23):
I don't know whether this is international or spreads wider
than New Zealand, but I've noticed that the people who
are deserving of some degree of condemnation over their behavior
and attitude toward the administration of the last few years

(21:45):
are the same people who are promoting and pushing hardest
for New Zealand to participate in the in the latest
changes being made by the Who.

Speaker 3 (21:56):
Why would that be, do you think? Yeah, I think
it's a range of motivations. Some people. I think they
do very well from funding from the pharmaceuticals who are
very much behind this agenda, because they see hundreds of
billions of dollars of profit in the long term. So
they're doing what they're paid for probably or what they were.

(22:19):
They're saying what they see as the best potential for
them to get paid in the future. I think others,
as we said that they genuinely believe this story, that
they just assume that these large institutions would be telling
the truth, that they have expertise, which they don't, and
that they are you know, so they just go along

(22:42):
and they're not going to stop and think deeply because
they've all been told that anyone who does is al
right wing conspiracy theorists and they're likely to be vilified.
So they you know, if you want a good job
in global health, international public health, you don't stick your
head out like that. And yeah, I think others they
may be realizing, they may dip down that this was

(23:05):
a mistake, if you know, for whatever the reason they
went on in the first place. But it's really difficult
to admit that if you sort of state to your
reputation got really famous in the media, et cetera. On
saying one thing, it's pretty difficult to backtrack then and say, well, actually,
pandemics aren't at big risk to humankind, and you know,

(23:26):
we have much bigger things to deal with. COVID was
a huge overreaction. We should have known better, and let's
do better now that there's not many people doing that.
Most of the noise among those people is that we
should have locked down faster and more strongly, which it's
essentially saying we should destroy the economy more for longer.

(23:47):
There is no good evidence that lockdowns did anything except
slightly slow transmission. So it is different perhaps in island states,
where you know you could keep it out for longer,
But now you haven't gained over the four years in
terms of or cause mortality compared to other countries that
didn't act in that way. So you're better off over

(24:09):
the four years, and you have an economy now that
makes you very vulnerable and is going to have a
huge impact on your ability to manage your nation's health
in the future. So I think there's not much doubt
that it was probably a mistake. Even in New Zealand,
where there appeared to be as an island, you could

(24:31):
keep everyone out and sort of pretended the world didn't exist.
But did I mention? And you wracked up a lot
of problems?

Speaker 2 (24:38):
Did I mention? I? No, I didn't, And I don't
think it was I don't think it was mentioned in
the last conversation we had when you were here midyear.
But they're still advertising for people to go get the JAB.
Oh yeah, get updated, Get updated, Get updated. The signs
are out the front of farmer.

Speaker 3 (24:58):
They're stood doing it in the US as well, from
six months upwards here, for which there is zero evidence
of benefit.

Speaker 2 (25:07):
Who who pray tell is responsible for that in the States.

Speaker 3 (25:12):
In the States, it's officially CDC, so they have their
vaccine schedule for children, and from six months up you're
expected to get a series of MR and a injection
which they know will concentrate in the over eas of
young girls and in the livers and adrenal glands of
girls and boys, et cetera. And they know that healthy

(25:33):
boys and girls and infants have almost near zero risk
of dying of COVID sort of less than one million,
So that there is no logic to any of this
except the potential for profit and the sort of around
that the sort of people who put their reputations want
to preserve them, et cetera. So there's no public health

(25:57):
rational public health basis that you can really follow to
justify this.

Speaker 2 (26:02):
So the mRNA vaccine that accumulates in different parts of
children's bodies does or can do how much damage.

Speaker 3 (26:12):
We don't know because we don't have long studies on
this or even decent short term studies, so there's no
even now there are no ongoing studies that they in adults,
they after six months they lost the control group, so
we can't compare, but we know the six months for
the Maderna and Pisa trials there was Maderna there a

(26:34):
course mortality was the same in the control group and
the vaccinator group in Maderna. For Pisa there were more
deaths in the vaccinator group than the control group, so
it was no effect or negative at six months in adults,
we don't have good data on any other age group.
So for each new booster sort of type in in

(26:55):
the US where they changed to a new variant, they
tested on I think as eight rats and they see
if those rats produce antibodies, and they take that as
the vaccine works, so they don't even have human trials
on the new versions now, so we have a passive
and very flawed adverse reporting system of AIRS in the

(27:17):
US and Australian using and so on have their own.
They show more high mortality and all severe effects reported
for associated with the MRI with COVID injections then for
all other vaccinations combined in the thirty years that FAIRS
in the US has been running. So that's obviously a

(27:40):
huge red flag normally, so to go and give that
sort of thing to infants who like health. Infants don't
die of COVID almost never. But we know, we don't
know what if you take, for instance, the accumulation of
the ovaries. We know, and we knew before they started

(28:00):
injecting anyone that the lipananoparticles accumulates in the ovaries in
in rats. It looked at in humans where the humans
are same, a girl was born with a certain number
of over so that that determines the length of their
fertility period when they're an adult. So the way the
m marina vaccines work, their marinae goes into a cell

(28:23):
and it lasts quite a long time because it's not
normal m RNA. It's modified one of their bases is
modified to make it last much longer. So the story
about it mRNA lasts only a few days in the cell,
it's true. But this isn't that sort of m RNA.
It's a modified The US bas is modified and makes it.
They did that to make it stay in the cell

(28:43):
much longer and produce much more protein.

Speaker 2 (28:45):
And that's right, that's right, that's right, from the beginning
of US, from the beginning right back to how they
decided it and they knew it.

Speaker 3 (28:53):
So yeah, yes, So it it goes to the cell,
it causes the machine of the cell to produce a
toxic protein, spike protein that the body recognizes as a
foreign protein. So it's to emulates an immune response against
a protein which is expressed on that cell. So it
will kill that cell as well, and it will cause

(29:15):
some local inflammation, which is what happens when you get
cell death. So if it concentrates in the ovaries, you'll
get some local inflammation in the ovaries and some cell
death in the ovaries. If it's in the liver of
the same et cetera. That's how it works. So it's
not an unreasonable assumption that you will lose some over

(29:36):
during that period and you'll have a shorter fertility period
as an adult. We don't know that, but it's not
an unreasonable assumption. We will find out in twenty or
thirty years time when the little girls who have been
just been vaccinated now go into menopause and will see
how long they had the fertility period. Yet they're still

(29:58):
being injected in this situation, and although they are not
any silyperous of COVID, they've all got everyone by now
has take COVID and has a pretty good immunity. And
the CDC did studies that compared directly, you know, did
you go into hospital did you die just after post

(30:19):
infection immunity? And you know when you get another infection,
or if you have vaccinate and you get an infection,
and there's you're slightly better off with natural immunity than
the vaccine, and the vaccine on top of natural immunity
makes almost no discernible difference. So we have all the
data that says if you've had an infection, you're highly

(30:41):
unlikely to get severely or and the vaccine won't help
significantly at all. This is a situation with everyone now.
So this is CDC data. It's published. The data on
the biodistribution going to the ovaries, et cetera is published
by phiz and Biointech and was with the regulatory agencies

(31:03):
when they have proved the vaccines. Now they also had
data from rats on an increase in fetal animality. It's
very significant increase compared to the control group in that
same experiment. Yet they recommend it for pregnant women. So
we've been through this period that is actually hard to
grasp as a public health physician in terms of, you know,

(31:27):
the recklessness with which this was imposed on particularly is
very vulnerable groups. Pregnant women and young children are usually
the very last ones to be injected with a new
drug and only after years of experience and then very
careful studies. So none of that happened normally with genetic

(31:47):
therapeutic which is what these are and what they were
classified as Bymadena. You have to do carstinogenicity studies to
see if it courses cancer. You have to do terratogenicity studies,
which is what they did in the rats, but you
need to watch that in humans as well to see
they fall cause fetal animalities. You have to do that
with a genetic therapeutic, which is what these are, you

(32:08):
don't have to do it with a vaccine. So when
they change the name to vaccine, they did away with
all the stuff that you have to do for this
sort of class of pharmaceutical and this is acknowledged in
the TTA report from Australia, the Australian regulatory agency of
the Therapeutic Goods Administration. They acknowledged this in the report

(32:30):
that the name change means that they didn't need to
do this. So you can imagine if you had an
existential threat from sort of airborne a bowler which is
never going to happen, never happened in human history, et cetera.
But it's in the movies that you might take these
sorts of risks. But it makes no sense for a

(32:51):
virus that is associated with death on average in Europe
at the age of about eighty to eighty three, and
those people are the sick ones at that age, not
the well ones. And that's what we faced with COVID.
That's what we knew were facing with COVID from the
first quarter of twenty twenty and is published in Land.
So that is what we're dealing with that is what happened.

(33:12):
I think that has got a lot to do with
why we keep seeing this push and keep seeing this pushed,
rather than people sitting back and saying, this is what
we actually did, because it's a big thing to admit.

Speaker 2 (33:25):
Well, let me cut to this paragraph. Knowing fully the
impact of their actions and you've said a couple of
times now they knew what they would, they knew what
they were doing, and they knew what they were causing.
Knowing fully the impact of their actions, who helped force
over one hundred million additional people into severe food insecurity
and poverty, up to ten million additional girls into child marriage.

(33:50):
And when you mentioned this before, I don't think you
mentioned sexual slavery.

Speaker 3 (33:55):
Well, that's what charm marriage is. Yeah, well, yeah, it's
sexual sorer rate, etcetera. So that you know, you take
a thirteen year old girl a new stick with an
old man. That's what you're doing, isn't it. Where does
the figure though?

Speaker 2 (34:10):
People? You know, anybody who was being interrogative would say
to you, where do you get the figure of ten
million pucked out of the.

Speaker 3 (34:19):
Yeah, that's from UNICF. That's from UNICF, The United Nations
Children educational finish whatever. The official UN Agency for Children.
What are you use suggesting that they're trust So that's published. No,
But they are like other agencies. They have a mix

(34:40):
of people. They put out some as did WHO, some
early on, some very good data and modeling and so
on the likely harms of this intervention. So you have
to remember that in twenty nineteen, late twenty nineteen, about
October November, WHO put out their pandemic influenza recommendations, which

(35:02):
essentially say, don't do this under no circumstances, closed borders,
do this sort of mass tests and trace et cetera.
So or you know the big features of COVID, and
they point out that if you put people out of
work for seven to ten days, you're likely to start

(35:24):
seeing overall negative outcomes, particularly in low income people because
of the the harm to the economy and their income, etcetera.
So UNISEF also, you know they put out at the
end of or in early twenty twenty one estimates that
were almost a quarter of million dead children just from
lockdowns in South Asia, so India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, et cetera.

(35:46):
Six countries, almost a quarter million children. There are almost
no children are dying from COVID that the World Bank
put out estimates in low income countries, for every person
that was saved by lockdowns, probably about two people died.
One point seven to two people died. It's the World Bank,

(36:07):
which is the same organization pushing the whole thing. So
these organizations are not that. They're large organizations and they
have some people in them who are trying to work
against the tide and actually get sensible data out. And sorry, no,
I was just going to say, I mean, it's not

(36:27):
made up. These are some say ten million girls. That's
because if you close schools and you're impoverished families, particularly
in South Asia, subs are in Africa and South America,
then we know that a lot of girls will come
out of school and they will be married off for
various reasons including the family doesn't feel that they can

(36:48):
afford to keep them anymore. And so this is what happens.
This is well recognized. You know, there are organizations like
There's a Child Not Bride that pre COVID that were
quite prominent in trying to reduce child marriage and noting
that poverty and is a big driver and keeping kids

(37:11):
in school is a big way of stopping it. We
heard nothing from them, so these figures aren't And this
is where I say, you know, this wasn't unexpected. It
was known that this sort of response would have these
sorts of outcomes, so it was intentional. Then the response
was intentional, and they knew that it would have this

(37:33):
collateral damage and they knew that the disease they were
doing it for, so in Sub Saharan Africa would kill
very very few people because half the population there is
under twenty. They're essentially children, and only about one less
than one percent of populations over seventy five, which is
the high risk of COVID. So yeah, so it was

(37:55):
intentional to do these lockdowns.

Speaker 2 (37:59):
What would you say was the morality level of the
people who you're discussing And you can stretched wider than
that in the field, but that they know what's going
to happen, they know what they're doing, but they do
it anyway. Where is the morality level there or is

(38:21):
there not? Doesn't seem very high.

Speaker 3 (38:25):
So we can all do this, I mean, we can
all talk ourselves into we can convince ourselves if we
really try, that something that is bad is necessary or good.
And you know, Unfortunately, we have to do this because
and you can pretend that the virus is an existential threat.
And it's pretty easy to do that because you sort

(38:47):
of get on board with your colleagues and you see
each other up and here we are saving the words
from a deadly virus as we kept hearing, you know,
twenty four to seven and all that stuff. So you
just you can get yourself into this mindset, particularly in groups,
where you can then convince yourself as a group that

(39:07):
you know there's going to be some damage, but you're
saving the world. And if you stop and you sit
on a mountain and you stop and you think carefully
through it, you realize that this is rubbish. But as
long as you stay in the group and you keep
seeing each other along, then I think you can sort
of do this. And so you know, it's how crowds work.

Speaker 2 (39:29):
And well, I'm not trying to go down I'm not
trying to go down a conspiracy path. But considering that
there are people involved at the very top of the
money making tree that this is who believe that the
world is overpopulated, but they have contributed greatly to this scenario.

(39:50):
The negative side of it is there any natural conclusion
or possible natural conclusion we can come to over that.

Speaker 3 (39:57):
Well, you could draw that, But if you're trying to
kill people, I think there's better ways of doing it.
If if you're you know, another effect of this is
that there's a big action in reproductive health. So there's
an increase in birth rate in Sub Saharan Africa as well.
So this isn't going to reduce the world's population overall.

(40:20):
Is probably going to increase it because poverty tends to
lead to more children born as a sort of insurance policy,
and so because you can't access contraception, et cetera. So
I don't think this will reduce the world's population. I
think it will make it much much poorer. But hold,
I mean there is a conspiracy, of course there is.

(40:41):
Any conspiracy is some people getting together and making a
plan and not telling other people about it. That's what
a conspiracy is, and that's that's how you do business.
If you're running a company, if you're running Pisa or something,
and you come up with a few other companies a

(41:02):
way of making selling a lot of stuff, which is
your job as CEO, and making a lot of money
out of it for your investors and shareholders. You're not
going to go and tell everyone, Okay, we're going to
do this because we want to make lots of money.
We want to make hundreds of billions of dollars from
silling a vacci you say we're saving the world. So
of course there's a conspiracy in that there is people

(41:25):
trying to make lots of money out of global health
and they're not telling everyone exactly what. They're not putting
it in those words. They're not telling everyone they're there
to make money. And for the shareholders, they're telling everyone
they're trying to save us. So but they are trying
to make money. That's a job. So it's a conspiracy
because they're running a business. That's say, run a business,

(41:47):
you have plans that you don't fully divulge to others,
to the world. So I think you can explain this
as a huge sort of business case that was completely
devoid of morals and any breaks on conflict of interest,
et cetera, and was facility hated by these large agencies

(42:11):
that have become dependent on these same private entities. So
of course there are people who people among these who
want to have less people in the world and in
a way I can sort of understand that. Wouldn't it
be nice to go to the beaches not crowded. Wouldn't
be nice not to have traffic jams every time you
go to work. Great, you know, more green fields, et cetera.

(42:31):
So that's a nice thing. But it's also nice to
have humans. And here we are, We got eight billion humans,
and humans are great. So you know, people can say
to you they'd like to have less people in the world,
and that's not a bad thing in itself to say,
as long as they're not saying and therefore we want
to kill lots of other people to get there. And

(42:54):
I think if you want to do that, you would
have a better virus than salas Kobe two, and you
would probably go further along the path of toxic responses
to it. So I don't think that that was the
primary driver at all. I think it was more making
a lot of money, and there are some other things

(43:14):
in the background. There is a push for things like
central bank digital currency, which is not I mean, there's
not a conspiracy there the central banks and someone say
they want this. A bank of interudicial sentiments says it
wants this cast and has talked about their head. To
do that, you need people ideally to be poorer and

(43:35):
to be more dependent on government and to have you know,
digital ideas and digital transactions that you can then use
to sort of control their lives their lives and oh,
you know, that's that's what they say. They want central

(43:55):
bank digital currency for it will allow you to control
how much people travel, how what they eat, where they go,
who they meet. So I think there are a lot
of people who don't just want money, they want this
sort of fascist eight globally. And that's always been the
case in human existence, is why would it go away?

(44:17):
And COVID was and this whole pandemic agenda is a
huge opportunity to do that because it provides the fear
that you need to make people do things that they
wouldn't normally do. So in the nineteen eighties in Australia
they tried to bring in a digital National Idea just
National Idea card, and there was a huge outcry and

(44:39):
it's just killed the whole idea. They're doing it now
and no one blinks because they've managed to get people's
mindset to think that the government is saving them from
existential crises. Whether it's it's pandemics, or it's a climate crisis,
or its terrorism, whatever, And they need to allow the

(45:01):
government to know where they are and where they're spending
their money and what they're doing all the time so
that they can be kept safe from all these things.
And I think that is somewhat deliberate, or is quite deliberate,
because people want to do that in order to have
control over others and even further concentrate wealth, etc. And

(45:21):
it's a sort of feudalism. That's the normal way that
human society works, unless you constantly fight against it. The
word you can wait for him. This is what they
talk about essentially with their great reset is essentially a
stakeholder capitalism is essentially feudalism.

Speaker 2 (45:36):
Well, we said we would revert to the American election
briefly at least, and that would appear to be the
right time to do it, considering you were just talking
of the CBDC, and let's throw into the mix the
fact that Trump has made it very clear that he
will ban it and will not allow it while he

(45:58):
is in any position to stop it. What comment would
you make on that.

Speaker 3 (46:03):
I think it's great.

Speaker 2 (46:05):
Yeah, not only not any great, fantastically.

Speaker 3 (46:09):
I mean it's it doesn't solve the problem completely. Obviously,
they essentially did what you want to do with CBDC.
They did that for instance in Canada during the Truckees effort,
and they you know that they people just had their
bank accounts closed. And so it turns out Millennia Trump
had a bank account closed in twenty twenty. Yep, so

(46:32):
did Baron Trump. I mean, what on earth? So that
they're already trying to make it hard to live financially
for people, but we don't need CBDC. There's a great
short video out probably not on YouTube but on other channels.
So it's the Minneapolis Fed Federal Reserve chairman talking about this,

(46:57):
saying like, why on earth would Americans want this? We
manage perfectly fine where their finances. Now, why do you
want the government to be to control everything you do?
It makes no sense from a public viewpoint. We don't.
It's not saving us from anything, it's just imposing more

(47:18):
more control over us. So why would anyone?

Speaker 2 (47:21):
So who was that? You said, Indianapolis? It's a Minianapolis
Reserve bank.

Speaker 3 (47:29):
Reserve bank. Yeah, So it's floating around on the internet.
It's in a few times. It's a good video. He's
just arguing, sensibly saying, why would people you know, you
can't well population, you want this imposed on you.

Speaker 2 (47:42):
Well, the answer, the answer is, of course you can
make something like that, and they and they do make
it appealing because you don't have to I mean, the
next the next thing would be that you'll have a
chip in your hand that will happen one day. Yeah,
so you don't need to never lose your keys, you never,
You don't have to worry about anything and just carry

(48:04):
on and life's easy to go.

Speaker 3 (48:06):
To the supermarket. You just wave here, hand over the
reader and there you go.

Speaker 2 (48:11):
Well, who wouldn't who wouldn't wanted them? And my response
immediately is look at the look at the change in
that election we've just well just mentioned of. I only
heard this morning that there was a swing of eleven
points for women under thirty to Trump.

Speaker 3 (48:35):
Yeah, young people very strongly voted and now swung in
that direction, which is really interesting actually and not I
think what the other side expected. So well, the only
shift in African Americans, a shift in Latino voters, et cetera.
Because you know, it's it's been an interesting time in
the US. I'm very surprised actually there. I come for

(48:56):
a number of reasons. But like many people, I thought
Trump was terrible the first time he was elected because
I listened to the media, and the media had nothing good.
What's over to say about this person? If you spend
the time and you listen to one two three hour
long long form interviews with him, then you get a

(49:18):
very different picture of who this person is. And you know,
I don't know why the media is so against him,
but if there's someone like that, is that important you
should sit down and actually make up your own minds
and not have your mind made up by someone else.

Speaker 2 (49:35):
And well, it's called it's called group thinkers, you know,
and it has quite a history now.

Speaker 3 (49:41):
But it's worse than that. This is propaganda, isn't it.
It's I mean, we were told constant that this person
was far right, racist, misogynists, whatever. But if you any
anti abortion, anti this, and anti that, and if you
listen to him, you've actually got pretty rational approaches to

(50:05):
these issues, but they almost never get reported in the media.
And he's someone who talks off the cuff a lot,
which is dangerous but for a politician, but is also
somewhat refreshing. We're so used to people just having teleprompters
and so on, or saying what their focus group told
them to say. So sometimes he says things in a

(50:27):
way that you sort of think, oh, no, why do
you say that way? Because people take it the wrong way.
But if you put it in the context of a
half hour hour long interview, then it starts to make sense.
And I think a lot of people saw this because people,
and probably much more than news in but the US
populace has turned massively away from mainstream media, and so

(50:51):
that people listen to podcasts. I will listen to the
podcast with Joe Rogan or with Tucker Carlson or something,
and they'll hear a Trump or a putt In or
Kamala Harris, if you'll do it or etc. Talk for
a long time, and you can start to get an
idea of what they're really thinking, whereas you can't do

(51:12):
that by a journalist who is and you know, there's
about ninety seven percent of US journalists are on one
side of politics and three percent on the other. When
they pull them and journalists openly say now that their
job is advocacy, not reporting the news. So that they
see their job as trying to turn the country into

(51:35):
what they consider as a better place. So the propagandas
so most of what we get now on mainstream media
in the US is propaganda and not news, and I
think people have which is a refreshing part of this.
People have realized that on a very large scale.

Speaker 2 (51:52):
They have in the States obviously, but not so much elsewhere.
We've still got the same. Yeah, simple journalists I'm trying
to be as kind as I can who don't understand
how it could have happened and continue to write the
crap that they have written all along. I am thinking

(52:13):
of one or two in particular.

Speaker 3 (52:15):
Yeah, I mean it happened because this was a person
who can actually articulate policy at length. You know, take
Charlotteville or something. He did not say, just good people
on both sides at Charlotteviell. You know, this is something
I only found two or three years later. Yeah, I
mean he said he specifically excluded white supremacists from that.

(52:37):
So it's the opposite of how it was reported. People
have seen so much of that here that I think
the media has just lost credibility. But you know, you
had one side that spent only a third of the money,
but who had very long speeches and very long interviews
and articulated a wide variety of policy alternatives. They said,

(53:02):
what they're planning to do? You had another side. If
there are clear policies, I miss them, And I think
people are struggling to the people struggle to figure out
what the actual policy is, apart from trying to keep
Trump out. But that's not a policy that you're going
to went on. So, yeah, they didn't articulate any policy,
and they broke down so so and that they clearly

(53:30):
did not tell the truth to the American public about
the state of the previous president and et cetera. So
you know, I can't see how journalists struggle with that
the left of polities and what the left used to be.
But if if you're a sort of pro Democrat or
pro republic whatever, it's hard to argue I think with
what I just said, because that's blatantly in front of everyone.

Speaker 2 (53:52):
Now, before you tell me that you've had enough, I've
got a couple of other things. So we should we
should move on, at least at least briefly two, two
or three other matters. If I may, I want to
mention Joy Battaria, one of the three medical people who
came up with the.

Speaker 3 (54:13):
Great Barrington.

Speaker 2 (54:14):
Yes, and at first of all, I didn't understand what
on earth the Great Barrington thing was. And then once
I got a grasp, of course I.

Speaker 3 (54:22):
Knew it was just orthodox public health. Well, there was
a Martin Kodolf and symmetric uption. They didn't come up
with anything new, which is why it is so important
that they just articulated clearly orthodox public health exactly. Now.

Speaker 2 (54:36):
I had cold Off on the podcast fairly early in
the piece and wish i'd had Betacharia, but I never tried.
But I see that he was just awarded a major
international scientific prize.

Speaker 3 (54:48):
You see that. Yeah, I can't remember what it was,
but I did. I know Jay, he's a very nice person. Yes,
these people should be getting prizes because they stood up
at considerable cost lost. Yeah, and they were just insisting
on telling the truth that they were talking orthodox public health. Asendy,

(55:10):
They're talking about what we knew is true. For a
lot of it's just common sense. You don't even have
to be a public health physician to know that if
you massively impoverish people and close down economy. Then that's
going to make health generally worse in the future. I
mean that's pretty obvious. So and that is why that's

(55:30):
what the great Barents and Declace is about, is just
you will cause more harm if you close down the
health system, closed down the economy for something like this,
rather than just concentrating on the people who are actually
at risk and addressing their needs.

Speaker 2 (55:45):
The Australian COVID Inquiry report now the risk of treading
on Ramesh the Cursed Toes. He's declared it not fit
for purpose?

Speaker 3 (55:56):
Have you read it? I haven't read it yet, no
report on it. I think it's much like the others.
It says should have done more stuff, more quickly, and
it does and go into the the harms I've seen
short summar.

Speaker 2 (56:13):
Reason we've we've got we've got something. I think we've
still got something underway here. It's it's hard to tell sometimes,
but it's it's going to fall into the same category
and there'll be a follow up. I think I trust
that it might might might be might get honest, do
you think that one day the people who are and

(56:34):
I'm thinking particularly of ex prime ministers and the and
their lot will be recognized appropriately for what they did.

Speaker 3 (56:47):
I think they will eventually, because when people look back
and do their studies on this in thirty or forty
year is time ye know that there there's this big
dip in the economy, there's an increase in debt. They
will see that as we know now. I mean, of course,
what I tell you wasn't any better, is generally worse
in countries that had strict measures compared to those that didn't.

(57:10):
And there is this huge impact on basic human rights
and so on that the world been fighting for for
so long and then just went backwards so many steps.
So I think in the future it'll be recognized as
a huge mistake. I doubt that it will directly impact
any of these people. I don't think anyone political is

(57:30):
going to go to jail or something for this, and
I'm not sure that. I mean, some of them are
actually extreme, and the one you're talking about is recognized
as fairly extreme globally. But politicians who were in a
really difficult situation with this, and I think we have
to recognize this put yourself in their shoes. The whole

(57:51):
media was against it, and the media was on the
side of big farm totally along with hundreds of billions
of dollars of effort. And if they stood and said,
as Prince of Sweden did, they weren't going to do this.
Every death is pinned on them, So it was likely
political suicide. Having said that, I didn't see any leaders
sit down in front of the nation for a couple

(58:12):
of hours and just talk through like these are the facts.
This is the age people dying, this is the comorbidities.
If we close down, we're not going to help all
these other people, and we're going to do this huge
economic harm and that's going to mean longer waiting lists
and less money for cancer treatment, and less money for
heart disease, less money for kids' illnesses, et cetera in

(58:36):
the future. So what are you doing. If we had
that conversation and there was a politician anywhere brave enough
to do that, I suspect that a lot of populations
would have sided with them. But that aside, you know,
I think they were just trying to avoid being classed
in the media and by a lot of the population

(58:57):
who were just brainwashed as murderers. I mean, maybe I'm
being over nice, I don't know, but I think that
sort of explains why so many went along with it
and very politicians stood up.

Speaker 2 (59:10):
I think it reflects on the politicians or the standard
of politicians that we now accept in the main.

Speaker 3 (59:16):
Oh, it certainly does that. Yeah, and just on I
know Australian politicians were speaking us in similar that, including
that you know your recent prime minister. Their career politicians.
They haven't run a business, they haven't run a farm,
they haven't worked in a law practice for thirty years

(59:37):
before they go into politics or medicine whatever. So they
go through they come out of high school, they go
into university, they joined student politics, they joined whatever party
in that politics in the university, and that's their career
for life is just being a politician. And really that's

(59:58):
the last person who you would want to run your country.

Speaker 2 (01:00:02):
You know, you've just because I have no idea, Yep,
you've just reminded me of something.

Speaker 3 (01:00:06):
There was.

Speaker 2 (01:00:07):
There was an article. There was a commentary piece written
by a university professor here with regard to Jacinda going
and giving advice to Karmela. Right, No, this is this
is true, not fiction, not fiction. Apparently it's true. There's
a picture of the two of them together and et cetera.

(01:00:27):
It's just occurred to me. We know that you, Sinda
worked in a fish and chip shop. Apparently Carmela didn't
work in McDonald's or no one can, no one can
prove it.

Speaker 3 (01:00:41):
They're stroking to find a record.

Speaker 2 (01:00:42):
Do you do you think maybe that gave her a
hint by saying, look, it stood being great stead having
worked in a fish shop. Maybe you worked in McDonald's
or something along the way.

Speaker 3 (01:00:55):
I suspect they were told to try to identify at
least with the ordinary people. A lot of interesting you know,
it's interesting looking at the all the celebrities socided.

Speaker 2 (01:01:06):
With most mostly for megabugs. Yeah, they were paid lots
and lots of money, yes, exactly.

Speaker 3 (01:01:13):
So so that they're not they're not people who apparently
were there because of this is what they really believed in,
or if they did, there was a very fortuitous that
they're getting paid to stand by the belief. Again, I
think that people saw this. People recognize, No, they didn't
know I think at that time how much people are

(01:01:33):
being paid, but they can see that people have not really,
you know, it comes back to actually articulating policies and
explaining why you're there. Versus just being there and jumping
up and down and saying never Trump. One side ran
this very shallow campaign. Guess you know how journalists can't
recognize that is really interesting because it means that they

(01:01:56):
are really they've lost the ability to think rationally to
a large extent.

Speaker 2 (01:02:01):
Indeed, not to to put paid to this podcast. Let
me quote you from the to arrest the degradation of health,
human rights, and sovereignty. We need an exit strategy from
unethical public health. This will require an exit strategy from
approaches mired in conflict of interest and an emphasis on

(01:02:23):
evidence rather than corporate profit. And for the sake of
both donor country taxpayers and the recipients of their support,
we need an exit strategy from external dependency in order
to achieve health independence. This is what sustainability and equity means,
words of which global health profiteers are so fond. These

(01:02:44):
changes need to be sect a wide, not just the WHO.
So what you're saying is that the WHO certainly needs
to be changed dramatically, but so does the whole sector.
Is that possible? Yes, it's possible.

Speaker 3 (01:03:00):
Comes back to what we're saying near the start of
the discussion that the global health industry is just growing
and grown more rapidly than us, probably than it has before,
and it should be going in the other direction. We
should be building capacity in countries that struggle technically so

(01:03:22):
they don't need external help anymore. And that is the
supposedly the whole point of foreign aid. And this is
the standard left or right wing, but certainly left wing
thinking around public health two decades ago. You don't want
a colonialist situation where you have people from rich countries

(01:03:44):
having all the expertise and going and telling people in
poor countries what to do. You want to build our
world based much more equally, where all countries have adequate
capacity and can manage their own health in the way
that they see fit. And that is what we are

(01:04:04):
supposed to be building in international public health. It is
the opposite of having very strong central institutions that have
the ability to dictate policy about whether it's vaccination or
lockdowns or whatever. And it's the opposite of growing these

(01:04:25):
central institutions. They should be getting smaller and smaller as
countries get on their own feet and do things themselves.
And I don't think people can really argue with that
from any point of view. Except if you really are
on the train that believes that the world is facally
increasing existential threats and we're all going to die if

(01:04:48):
we don't all give up our rights to some central
bureauct to save us. And if you're on that train still,
then it is properly hard to get you off it.
But there's no rational basis for believing that we are
generally living longer, and pandemics outbreaks, infectious his outbreaks are

(01:05:09):
getting less deadly overall and are not getting more frequent.
We're getting better at detecting them, but they're not killing
more people. So it's illogical to believe that it doesn't
fit historically, it doesn't fit epidemiologically. If people crust them
minds back to twenty nineteen, it doesn't fit properly with
their experience at all. So people need to sort of

(01:05:32):
undo the propaganda a bit and go back to that mountain,
sort of think on their own and think through what
is actually going on, and that they will realize that
there is no good reason to keep growing these bureaucracies,
that poverty was going down before COVID, etc. Countries were
doing better. The most African countries had rapidly increasing GDPs

(01:05:57):
or that was reversed during COVID, the world was getting
much better. We've had this huge step backwards. But you
could argue that is because of these institutions need for
surviving growth is such that they are now really poisoning
the world and poisoning the countries that they were supposedly supporting.

Speaker 2 (01:06:16):
I read this morning, it was sent it was sent
to me from London, an article from The Times on
the top four. I think it was airlines with the
luxury section sector and you know, Emirates and Singapore Airlines
and whatever else, and they've all refitted or in the

(01:06:41):
process of refitting, and the luxury level has gone up
rapidly in first class, business class and in economy plus.
And I just thought earlier on when you were talking
about the travel business class travel for these people who
who fly around between between Nairobi and Geneva and what

(01:07:02):
have you, that this was even more incentive for them
to maintain their positions and grow the company.

Speaker 3 (01:07:09):
Oh yeah, and it's people think the foreign age is
going to help you desperate people in distant villages. A
lot of it is going to support these people, and
it's extremely difficult when you're in that situation which I've
been in to get out of it because it is
such a nice and interesting life. You know, people dream

(01:07:29):
about this. So yeah, there's all sorts of reasons that
people in this organization to think of to maintain that situation.

Speaker 2 (01:07:39):
David being a pleasure. Thank you, always grateful, and I
hope that we I hope we see you again soon.

Speaker 3 (01:07:48):
Yeah, I hope. So thanks late, and I have a
good Christmas early soon.

Speaker 2 (01:07:51):
Oh listen, I forgot. I'm sorry. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year,
and stay well. Thank you, thank you. Now in the

(01:08:16):
mail room for podcast number two hundred and sixty five,
we discover missus producer.

Speaker 4 (01:08:21):
Leyton, how are you?

Speaker 2 (01:08:23):
You're raring to go?

Speaker 4 (01:08:24):
I don't need to ask how you are because we
are a very happy boy after last week's win.

Speaker 2 (01:08:31):
Somewhat satisfied, you might say, right, And as one might expect,
most of if not all, of the mail this week
is on that particular topic. So why don't you roll? Leyton?

Speaker 4 (01:08:45):
Wayne says, Wow, what an amazing win, not only for
Donald J. Trump, but also for the American people. Despite
being up against the Democrat machine, the academic and coast elites, Hollywood,
the great majority of the biased mainstream media and being
vastly outspent, the will of the people could not be denied.
It truly does restore one's face and democracy and common sense.

(01:09:08):
Trump's dogged perseverance to keep fighting back despite everything that's
been thrown against him is truly inspirational. If only we
had a leader like Trump willing to follow through with
the courage of their convictions and stand up against the
idiotic policies and the woke agenda. It's going to be
fascinating four years, and I suspect the Democrats will be

(01:09:28):
much like the Labor Party and refuse to accept the
fact that they've lost touch with the aspirations and concerns
of the common people who make up the vast majority
of the electorate. I saw a snippet of that great
champion or formerly of the working class, Bruce Springsteen, performing
a few songs at a Carmela rally. Thought how ironic

(01:09:50):
it was that he he was singing for the Democrats
while the actual working class people he made his fortunes
singing about. We're now firmly supporting the Republicans in every
increasing numbers, and I think will no doubt continue to
do so as long as the Democrats are captured by
their radical left policies. I'm sure the irony of this

(01:10:11):
would not be lost on him. In a moment of
quiet reflection, kind regards and keep up the good work.

Speaker 2 (01:10:18):
That's from Wayne. Wayne, I can't disagree with you, except
maybe on one point. When you get to the level
of Bruce Springsteen, let's just say that maybe he doesn't
care as much as you thought about the people.

Speaker 3 (01:10:35):
So to speak.

Speaker 4 (01:10:35):
Although those celebrities live such an exalted life, don't they
that they can't remember what it's like to live paycheck
to paycheck.

Speaker 2 (01:10:45):
Yes, and boosted by funds from the Democrat Bank Eileen
New Zealand's mainstream media and their monotonous meltdowns over the
Democrats losing the American elections won't solve a thing. Democracy
reflects the will of the people from all walks of life,

(01:11:06):
and that's something the MSM simply cannot fathom. This includes
free speech freedoms. Their sulky petulance often reflects a collective
loss of contact with external realities. Metaphorically, it appears like
grown up thumb sucking and juvenile tongue poking. This includes

(01:11:28):
their personality attacks and character assassinations upon Republican politicians. New
Zealand also has an international reputation and international trade links
to consider. Mainstream media should engage in big picture thinking
and perhaps reflect on their myopia and potential mass formation psychosis. Fortunately,

(01:11:50):
these days, the public has now choices and independent media,
independent symposians, and independent podcasts present as a viable alternative.
After all, variety is the spice of life. I think
that we should we should invite suggestions as to who

(01:12:12):
are the most myopic of the media and journalists at
this point of time.

Speaker 4 (01:12:19):
Just saying, Leighton Vincent says, I'm sure you'll be inundated
with emails after the US election, but firstly, thanks for
your fantastic podcasts with Patrick Basham. It was so good
to hear his analysis before and after the vote or
a brilliant man. This morning, I realized that it should
be safe to tell people that you'll pro Trump, because

(01:12:40):
anti Trump is clearly in the minority. I'm keen to
see how the mainstream media adapts, if it's willing to
the new landscape that lays before them, and whether people
will finally c through the bs we've been fed since
at least twenty sixteen. The choices in the hands of
the media as to what they do, particularly if they
want to remain relevant. Much like the demise of the

(01:13:02):
Saint Cindy government here, it's going to be refreshing to
wake up each day not worried about the US idiots
and power and what they're planning to do. Thanks again
for your amazing podcasts, and that's from Vincent instance appreciated.

Speaker 2 (01:13:16):
Thank you very good. Now from Bryce and Brisbane. We
both picked Trump to win. I picked that he would
win by a bit around three hundred, says Bryce. I've
been following the various polls for some time and was
of the opinion that the ones the lamestream media were
posting were wrong. I couldn't understand their logic, but it

(01:13:40):
wasn't logic. It was propaganda. This was writ large when
I was in the States a few months ago. What
was being written was not what was on the ground.
The data I was seeing on the Swing States indicated
to me that they would go to Trump, with maybe
one or two exceptions. As far as I was concerned,
the mainstream media was engaging in hope. America rejected woke yesterday,

(01:14:05):
America rejected not only the Democratic Party, but how it
was run and the insane policies they promoted. For me,
they didn't understand the wider public, only pandering to their
academic elites who look down on the working class, the unwashed,
who used to be their base. America rejected them with
the popular vote, which will sting the Democrat Party, the

(01:14:28):
very party that lied and hid Biden's decline with the
complicity of the majority of the mainstream media. The media
have lost their way and as we all know, have
moved from reporting to agenda setting. It was salient to
note Julle Biden dressed in red on election day. People

(01:14:49):
in those circles sent messages with their attire. Quite why
we down under were able to spot this wind from
a mile away speaks on how out of touch the
Democratic Party are. They will need to see an optician
as they will spend the number of years naval gazing
after this pearl esque defeat from Bryce. In Brittany Land.

Speaker 4 (01:15:14):
Layton Steve says, ever heard of this?

Speaker 1 (01:15:17):
Now?

Speaker 4 (01:15:17):
It seems the unvaccinated succumb to diabetes more easily. Is
this the next wave of why you should get jabbed?
A miracle cure all for the common ills of Western
societal issues. Keep up the excellent work, enjoying your podcasts weekly.
Let's hope the election term stays at three years as
an undoubtedly labor will get in again at some point,

(01:15:38):
and the previous six yes stint of wastefulness and incompetence
was felt like an ardernity that would never end. You
and I both booked in Trump by a landslide. Trudeau
is next to feel the voter's wrath. Looking forward to
this week's podcast, and that's from Steve.

Speaker 2 (01:15:55):
Steve, along with all the others, very good. This has
been a pretty damn good week. We're leaving some for
later reference. By the way, I am a Macintosh, writes
George A. New Zealand Herald October thirty expresses disbelief. Is
she a columnist or a letter writer or whatever? I

(01:16:17):
don't know, so I start again. Emma Macintosh, New Zealand Herald,
October thirty is expresses disbelief that her fellow citizens are
so ignorant that they do not include man made climate
change in their top five issues affecting the country. It
comes as no surprise that economic and social issues are
currently front of mind for most of us, as these

(01:16:38):
are the issues that we face in our daily lives. Ever,
believes that ongoing droughts, floods, fires, and sea level rise
will bring devastation and calamity to our future generations. This
raises another issue. A recent study has indicated that our
kids are suffering increasingly from anxiety. Further, around fifty percent

(01:17:01):
stated that climate change was the main cause of their torment. Perhaps, perhaps,
just maybe it's time for us to temper inflammatory language
around climate change. Don't rely on it, don't hold your breast,
George Laton.

Speaker 4 (01:17:19):
This is from Graham who's written He's copied it to you,
and he's written to Ericus Stanford, Immigration Minister, and he's
copied it to Winston and David Seymour, and so the
letter says, dear missus Stanford. It has been claimed in
the news media that approximately eighteen thousand Americans are planning
to flee to our once blessed country because of their

(01:17:41):
fear and loathing of President Trump. As you'll understand, that
makes those people far beyond the pale in regard to
the obnoxiousness of their opinions and views in comparison to
the lovely Candice Owens, would you please ensure that such
dangerous US citizens are disallowed entry to our beautiful country
where President Trump is respected and honored.

Speaker 3 (01:18:03):
That's from Graham.

Speaker 2 (01:18:05):
Graham also very good, missus. Stanford will pay attention. I'm
sure he is, after all, my MP and yours too,
I believe, funnily enough, shears later. There you go. Now,
I commented to somebody a few days ago, I, well,
let me just state it. I wondered about this. Even

(01:18:26):
Trump was saying, after the attempted assassination where he got
his earclipped, that he believed that God had intervened it.
Come to that conclusion. And by the way, there appears
to be some evidence of a verbal kind, at least,
that he is not alien to the thought of there
actually being a God. Anyway he was combating. I saw

(01:18:48):
him do it at another speech, that he believed that
God had him turn his head. Now a lot of
you will laugh at that or mock it. No, none
of you will knock it, but you might be amused
by it.

Speaker 3 (01:19:01):
Anyway.

Speaker 2 (01:19:01):
I asked the question of somebody whether or not, having
gone that far, whether it be an endorsement of Trump
by upstairs with the size of the whim. After all,
it was not expected by too many people, and it
was sensational, so it would go hand in glove, would

(01:19:22):
it not if you were following that line of thinking.
So with that in mind, I read you this Wow,
just wow. The twenty twenty four US election proves that
God proves that God exists, the editorial of Spectator Australia proclaimed,
following the first of the two assassination attempts, in which
mister Trump turned his head at the split second the

(01:19:42):
bullet was fired, this magazine, at its cover was unequivocal
suggesting the hand of God may well have been at
work and that mister Trump had more work yet to do.
Looks like we may have been right. Americans had a
choice to either usher in a new government represented by

(01:20:03):
self aware, hard working men like Elon Musk, Joe Rogan,
and Daniah Dana White, or continue to be lectured by
self righteous, filthy rich women like Oprah Winfrey, Michelle Obama,
and Beyonce. Trump and Harris represented those two completely opposing worlds.
Trump represented the people, Harris represented Hollywood, and in this election,

(01:20:28):
the people hated Hollywood. This election proved that minorities actually
want the same thing as the majority of Americans. They
want men to be men and women to be women.
They want their country's borders to be protected, they want
the cost of living to be affordable, they want justice
to be done, they want Hollywood to shut the hell up,

(01:20:50):
and they want a president who can relate to them.
And as Patrick Basham said in your podcast, Trump has
the uncannyability to reach out to normal people, and after
the insanity of the Biden Harris administration, normality is exactly
what Trump's administration will deliver. Once again. Spectator Australia rightfully

(01:21:13):
proclaims the triumph of Donald Trump is indeed a win,
win win, a win for America, a win for democracy
and a win for traditional Western values over the insidious socialist,
communist Marxist ideology of wokeness. Close quote, Americans have dodged
a bullet alongside Trump thanked the Lord Almighty for his

(01:21:35):
mercy upon us in twenty twenty four. You go bet
there's a lot of people that think along those lines. Well,
thank you for your inputness, producer. Can can I see
you next week later?

Speaker 4 (01:21:54):
That'll be fabulous.

Speaker 2 (01:21:55):
I'll look forward to it, maybe before even Thanks so
much and so to some post election commentary from a

(01:22:25):
couple of sources. There are so many of them, I'm
drowning in them if you can drown in paper. But
we'll reserve some of them for future usage, I think.
But leading the pact today will be James Bobard, who, I,
if I may put it this way, adore his commentaries.
That is, after the media complained non stop for months

(01:22:46):
about Donald Trump offering a duck message on the presidential
campaign trail. A New York Times headline bewailed his election
victory on Wednesday morning, America hires a strong man, so
anyone who cast about it became the moral equivalent of
a mafia don hiring a hitman. With a question mark.

(01:23:07):
The Times news analysts lamented this was a conquering of
the nation, not by force, but with a permission slip.
Now America stands on the precipice of an authoritarian style
of governance never before seen in its two hundred and
forty eight year history. Now, when I was pre reading this,
I thought I'm going to have something to say here

(01:23:28):
because it's fairly obvious. And then I read the next
paragraph and I thought, well, I can't better it. So
this is what Jim said, well, at least never before
seen by journalists whose knowledge of history doesn't extend back
beyond Taylor Swift's first best selling album. The notion that
Trump was a unique threats in American history entitled the

(01:23:49):
media to ignore all the civil liberties abuses of the
Biden Harris administration. Coincidentally, that spared many reporters and editorial
writers the difficulty of comprehending the policies which they tacitly endorsed.
The media betrayed freedom of speech, at least for Americaans
who don't have a journalism degree. Biden administration officials conducted

(01:24:13):
potentially quote the most massive attack against free speech in
United States history close quote. A federal judge concluded, and
a federal appeals court condemned Team Biden for suppressing millions
of protected free speech postings by American citizens, mostly by
Conservatives and Republicans, But most of the media was the

(01:24:36):
Sherlock Holmes dog that didn't bark when federal agencies browbeat
social media companies with endless demands to muzzle and blindfold
average Americans. Vice presidential candidate j D. Vance raised the
censorship issue during his debate with Governor Tim Waltz, but
it got little or no traction beyond his speels. Instead,

(01:24:57):
censorship was championed by the media in recent years as
part of a holy crusade against misinformation, that is, facts
that are damned inconvenient for the ruling class. Did progressives
discover a hidden asterisk to the First Amendment that another
fies constitutional rights for anyone who jokes about COVID vaccine mandates?

(01:25:21):
Because it was a self evident truth that Orange Man bad,
most reporters and pundits exerted little or no effort to
comprehend or expose Biden administration follies and frauds. Almost all
the media campaign coverage ignored the risk of World War
III thanks to the Biden Harris escalation of the Ukraine
Russia War. Why was there no controversy about Biden providing

(01:25:45):
F sixteen jets to Ukraine, potentially enabling Ukraine to attack
practically anywhere in Russia with US bombs? Or did the
media believe that they had a moral authority to blindly
support Ukraine because its president, unlike Putin, supports transgender rights
that rule do us about the third of the weights stream,

(01:26:08):
Maybe half the way through. But it's very good James Beauvard,
if you want to track it down now. In short,
these are dangerous times from James Howard Kunstler. People in
the media are aware of how illegitimately they've done their jobs,
that they think they're on the verge of being locked up. Now,

(01:26:30):
that was a quote from Scott Adams that he's employed.
You must admit it's a little spooky how quickly and
rigorously mister Trump intends to deconstruct those parts of the
government at war with the people. Clean out rogue bureaucrats,
fire hose the malignant agencies, release and expose their document
trails on spying, censorship, law fare, and abuse of power.

(01:26:55):
The consequence would be the return of consequence in our
national life. I had to read that twice to grasp.
But the consequence would be the return of consequence in
our national life. It's been absent for so long you
can hardly imagine its power to get people's minds right.
There are already reports of frenzy among the culpable Department

(01:27:16):
of Justice lawyers, and FBI Director Ray is set to
resign before Trump can fire him. Attorney General Merrick Garland
has gone radio silent for his own good since election day.
Expect many abiding mysteries to get unraveled, such as exactly
how many federal agents did work the crowd around the
Capitol on j six twenty one, which mister Ray has

(01:27:42):
pretended to not be able to discuss due to ongoing investigations.
Expect to learn more about the pipe bomb caper at
the DNCHQ a few blocks away the same day. Prepare
to be amazed at how deeply criminal these schemes were.
You must wonder if the document treading party is already underway,

(01:28:03):
despite calls to preserve all the emails, memos and texts.
Then there are the poisoned realms of the intel blob
located at CIA, A, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State,
Department of Defense, and elsewhere being subject to inquiry and overhaul.
Think John Brennan, James Clapper, Bill Maher, Michael Atkinson, Mayorcus

(01:28:29):
Judge Boseburg, Mary McCord, Colonel Vindman, Senator Warner, Avril Haynes,
Victoria Newland, Samantha Power, Gina Haspell, Marie Yovanovich, Jen Easterly,
all their deputies, all their deputies, and many more unknown

(01:28:50):
to the public. Some of these names may yet seem
obscure to you. They were all necked deep in what
looks a lot like sedition, treason, real conspiracies, not theories.
Even state officials such as New York Attorney General Lea
Tisha James, Manhattan DA Elvin Bragg, and Fulton County GA

(01:29:11):
DA Panny Willis would be subject to federal charges under
eighteen USC. Section two four to two, which states willful
deprovision of constitutional rights acting under color of law. That
is exactly what the Trump law fare cases amounted to. Then,

(01:29:32):
of course, there are the long running rumors of pedophilia
and human trafficking networks among the elite, the Jeffrey Epstein
list and the p. Diddy list. If these things exist
and they are released, history would shudder. Then goes on
and give some examples, but that will do us. There

(01:29:53):
is lots of good writing, lots of exposure, and there
are not going to be easy times for quite a
lot of people, and for anybody who just might be
of a different school of thought and think this is
the authoritarian they're talking about that he's going to turn into.
He is going to be a dictator. The answer is no.

(01:30:15):
This is or would be simply pursuing justice and that
will take us out for podcast two hundred and sixty five.
If you would like to correspond, please do latent at
newstalksb dot co dot nz or Carolyn C. A. L.
Y N Carolyn at NEWSTALKSB dot co dot nz. We

(01:30:39):
shall return with podcasts number two hundred and sixty six
very shortly in the meantime. As always, thank you for
listening and we'll talk soon.

Speaker 1 (01:30:56):
Thank you for more from Newstalks EDB. Listen live on
air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with our podcast on iHeartRadio
Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know
Dateline NBC

Dateline NBC

Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2025 iHeartMedia, Inc.