Leighton Smith Podcast #293 - July 16th 2025 - David Bell

"July 19 is the last day that Member States of the World Health Organisation can withdraw from the IHR amendments (without entering a multi-year withdrawal process).

By failing to withdraw, they will be committing their taxpayers to fund the key surveillance aspects of a rapidly expanding industry that is the pandemic industrial complex.

The hapless inhabitants of WHO Member States seem to have no real leaders anymore.”

This quote by David Bell, former medical officer and scientist at the WHO, relates to the situation in New Zealand.

David is also a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health.

And we check in to The Mailroom with Mrs Producer.

File your comments and complaints at [e-mail]

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.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News Talks EDB. Follow
this and our wide range of podcast now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of theis now the Leyton
Smith Podcast powered by News Talks EDB.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Welcome to podcast two hundred and ninety three for July sixteen,
twenty twenty four. I'm approaching this podcast just a little differently,
almost backwards, you might say, or in reverse. Most of
you will be familiar with David Bell, but let me
tell you. For those who aren't, let me tell you
about David Bell. He is a senior scholar at Brownstone Institute.

(00:49):
But he is a public health physician and biotech consultant
in global health. He's a former medical officer and scientist
at the World Health Organization 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

(01:14):
Good Fund in Bellevue, Washington State, USA. So they are
some of his qualifications, because there are more. His latest
contribution was on July eleven, update on international health regulation amendments.
I'm going to suggest something in a moment with regard

(01:35):
to those of you who have a vital interest in
this particular topic, and can I suggest, may I suggest
that that should be each and every one of us.
I discovered much more than I knew that I was missing,
if that makes sense, in collating some of David Bell's
articles over the last few months. And all I can

(01:56):
say is that it has supplied me with a wealth
of knowledge in this area that I certainly didn't have,
and I would imagine that many of you will want
to be in the same position.

Speaker 3 (02:07):
So we'll get to that moment.

Speaker 2 (02:09):
Let me quote you a little of some of the
articles that I've referred to. The United States in Argentina
have stated their intent to leave the WHO. The era
of principles and ideals is long gone from international health.
More money will be channeled to ever growing bureaucracies whose

(02:29):
sole function, whose only reason for existence is to identify
theoretical threats that can be used to close economies, remove
the livelihoods of others, and extract more of their remaining wealth.
The hapless inhabitants of WHO member states and that includes US,
seem to have no real leaders anymore. Eventually, the whole

(02:52):
edifice will collapse under the weight of its own fallacies
and economic unsustainability. In the meantime, the sad corporatist mess
that international public health has become will continue to be
in debt and demoralize its public. Now some of the
articles are headed a false claims of the Who's Pandemic Agreement,

(03:14):
the Who's Draft Pandemic Agreement, pointless verbiage defunding GAVY an
innocent step toward decolonization. GAVY is largely funded by the
Gates Foundation. That should tell you something and update on
international health regulation amendments, which I think I just said

(03:35):
was the most recent one, but there are a number
of other articles now. They contain a wealth of information,
They answer a lot of questions, and I can only
suggest that by going to Brownstone Institute searching David Bell's name,
which will supply you with all of the above at

(03:58):
a long list they are and you can select what
you want to read. But my guess is that you
want to read everything that David's written because it's that
good and that worthwhile, and that revealing we are not
in a good situation in this country. There's one section
the growth of human resilience, just to give you an
idea of what I mean. So back to sanitation, nutrition,

(04:19):
and living conditions. Relatively recently we figured out that or
what pathogens are bacteria, viruses, protozoa, nematode, worms, and the like,
and better understood how to avoid them altogether. Many of
the pathogens that used to kill us spread from person
to persons through a fecal oral route, as it is

(04:42):
euphemistically called. They reproduce within the body and the resulting
multitude move on when we defecate. If someone then drinks
water contaminated by that, they get infected. You get the picture.
Pathogens that's spread by respiratory routes to cause disease e g.
Influenza and COVID nineteen are more likely to pass between

(05:03):
people if they live in confined space with poor air circulation.
But I'm trying to get to here is good nutrition
is absolutely essential for us to mount an effective immune response,
whether to an organism or a vaccine. The cells in
the immune system have specific requirements such as vitamins D K, two,

(05:25):
C and E and zinc and magnesium, and cannot function
well without an adequate concentration of them. They can also
be impaired in their function when our general metabolism is impaired,
such as in diabetes, starvation, or chronic diseases and anemia.
So that paints a picture that some people have been

(05:46):
talking about for some considerable time. Some people on this
podcast also But that's only a taste of what we'll
get from David Bell when we get into the discussion shortly.
Then the mail room of course with missus producer, and
a lot of tributes to Professor des Gorman and a
touch of AI at the back end of the podcast.

(06:10):
I have a feeling that AI is going to cause
a lot more trouble socially than might have been anticipated.
Only time will tell. Buccolan is a natural oral vaccine
in a tablet form called bacterial nicet. It'll boost your

(06:31):
natural protection against bacterial infections in your chest and throat.
A three day course of seven Buckland tablets will help
your body build up to three months of immunity against
bugs which cause bacterial cold symptoms. So who can take
buccolan well, the whole family From two years of age
and upwards. A course of Buckelan tablets offers cost effective

(06:51):
and safe protection from colds and chills. Protection becomes effective
a few days after you take buccolan and lasts for
up to three months following the three day course. Buccolan
can be taken throughout the cold season, over winter, or
all the year round. And remember Buckelan is not intended
as an all alternative to influenza vaccination, but may be
used along with the flu vaccination for added protection. And

(07:15):
keep in mind that millions of doses have been taken
by Kiwi's for over fifty years. Only available from your pharmacist.
Always read the label and users directed, and see your
doctor if systems persist.

Speaker 3 (07:27):
Farmer Broker Auckland Layton Smith.

Speaker 2 (07:38):
An update on the International Health Regulation amendments by David
Bell is an interesting conclusion to this point anyway, of
a series of articles that he's written since we last spoke,
and we'll touch on those sooner or later. But David's
great to have you back on the podcast, and it's
been I think eight months, and if I'm honest, I say,

(08:00):
I have to say that I've missed you, and that's
not anybody's fault but mine.

Speaker 3 (08:04):
I think, thanks, so it could be back.

Speaker 2 (08:09):
So the update on International Health Regulation Amendments published on
July eleven. Much has been written on the amendments to
the International Health Regulations the IHR, which most countries are
making themselves subject to after July nineteen, which, as we're
recording this on the fifteenth, is about four days away.

(08:34):
So many raised concerns of loss of sovereignty, censorship, corporate greed,
and conflict of interest, but most are missing the main point,
the sheer and outright stupidity and fallacy on which the
whole pandemic agenda is based. It's pretty brave of you

(08:55):
to say something like that.

Speaker 3 (08:57):
Please explain, Well, it's evidence based, so it's not that
brave to just to say, you know, the grass is green,
which it is. We haven't had a confirmed, large natural
pandemic on Earth since the Spanish Flu, which was over

(09:18):
a century ago, before we had antibiotics, before we had
good medical, modern medical treatment, all that comes with that.
And you know, since that time, infectious disease dest in
general have plummeted due to better sanitation, better living conditions,
better nutrition. We all live longer, especially in wealthy countries,
and the reasons for that are the same as the

(09:41):
reasons why it would survive a pandemic. If the Spanish
flu came again, they're exactly the same virus, we would
have a fraction of the mortality rate that we did
then because most people and Anthony Fauci, formerly National Intersues
of Health in US has written a paper on this
that most people probably died from secondary bacterial infections readily

(10:03):
treated with antibiotics. So since then we had an outbreak
that they've fifties one or late sixties both influenza swine
flu killed a quarter of the number that normally die
of seasonal flu. So it was nothing in two thousand
and nine, and then we had COVID, which appears very
likely to have come from a lab, but even if

(10:24):
it didn't, the WHO records about seven millions of and
a half million deaths with COVID in the whole world
over the whole period, and that's probably about accurate with COVID.
Most of those were over seventy over seventy five years
of age, and most had significant comorbidities. Are already sick,

(10:47):
that's why they died of COVID, So it shortened their
lives a bit, which is unfortunate, but it's not anything
like the major pandemics of the past, and it probably
came from a lab, you know, in which case it
stoppered by improving biosecurity in labs and not doing gain
a function research or other highly reckless a lot of

(11:09):
activities that people are paid to do. So there's this
People like to talk about an age of pandemics and
all this stuff, but it's just the evidence is the opposite.
And very few people say this because all the money
is on the pandemics and on the pandemic preparation and
public health. So you know what I'm saying. We've got,

(11:31):
you know, the project of the University of Leeds that
we've mentioned before last year, the Repair Project for instance,
is the evidence is very clear. Looking at the WHO,
the World Bank, the G twenty's own evidence that they
use to say that we have a huge problem from pandemics,
it's very clear that we haven't. And they misuse citations

(11:57):
and some of them I mentioned the article you mentioned
the two twenty twenty three who put out two articles
to support this whole pandemic agenda called Managing Epidemics Epidemics
and Version two and the Future Surveillance, and they both
use the same graphic, which is a graphic that shows
in the year two thousand, no outbreaks, and then suddenly

(12:19):
we get all these outbreaks up to year twenty twenty
or so, and things like play, yellow fever, influenza, et cetera.
You know, things that we've had, we've had for centuries,
and we're far, far worse in the past, and they

(12:39):
produce this graphic that suggests to anyone looking at it
that they were all starting and getting worse in the
last twenty years, the opposite of reality, and the who
knows this that graphic should show the opposite. And then
this is the the only basis they use to push
these whole soul gender in these publications, and we've seen

(13:01):
the same from the World Bank, from the g twenty
And there's a reason for this because you know that
there is huge profits to be made in area. But
it's not public health. It's a business thing, and people
keep mistaking it for public health.

Speaker 2 (13:16):
And all right, let's pause there and just go back
on this a little. What you're saying is it's a scam.

Speaker 3 (13:24):
Yeah, yeah, in terms of public health, it's a scam.
The idea that we have increasing more totally different pandemics
over the last century or so and over the last
decades is false, certainly from natural pandemics. You can say
what you like about COVID if you ignore the age
of death, et cetera. But yes, it's a false narrative.

Speaker 2 (13:45):
How many I know, you can't put a number on it,
but generally, how many other people in similar positions to
yourself agree with you?

Speaker 3 (13:56):
How many openly say they agree? Probably a few percent.
I think of people working in international public health, how
many genuinely agree? I think probably the majority, just based
on anecdotally. If I've sat down in groups of people
and we've talked it through and everyone's agreed sort of thing,

(14:18):
but none of them will say it publicly, and then
you know, you're in a meeting and they all say
the opposite. But because people know that potentially extremely damaging
to your career to say this, because all the money
is in the for the research, for the implementation, so on,
is on the pandemic agenda, but no one, you know.
We published in the University of Leeds Repair Project published

(14:42):
the report two reports, one on risk, one on finance,
and then a number of reports since then pointing out
fallacy faults in the modeling of the average age and
what you know. There's papers out and reports out there.
One you'll send to the news in and oral Commission
on COVID saying two and a half million people die

(15:02):
every year from pandemics. That's if you use the few
body plague and medieval time games and you translate it
onto today's population, which is our city. And no one
has refuted any of the evidence that we've has been
put up that we put up through leads. But because
it is from the sources that these the same sources

(15:26):
that these institutions are misquoting, so it's not really it
shouldn't be controversial, and it wasn't. A couple of decades
ago everyone accepted that infectious disease was getting much rarer.
Suddenly it's getting what we told is getting more common.
But no one is suggesting why. There's this idea of
global warming, et cetera. But there's no good evidence tying

(15:47):
climate change to any significant increase in diseases, apart from
a few to viruses like chicken gun you and dinghy
that eighties of jipdi or other vectors spread slightly high latitudes,
but they're not that they have tiny mortality compared to
overall ortaiti. And there's things that Hilaria. Actually in the

(16:10):
temperate zones where they should be getting worse with the
climate change, you're getting better. It's in the tropics that
they're getting worse. So there's no good evidence tying climate
change to a significant increase. Deforestation has always gone on,
so that that's really a false taim when people say
deforestation and more contact with wildlife, we're killing off wildlife.

(16:35):
So there's going to be less human wildlife contact overall,
not more. So. It just, you know, it's built on
this series of fallacies that point out in the article,
and people are getting tied up, you know, reasonably with
things that you know, just binge on sovereignty, et cetera.
And it is going to be extremely costly. And there's

(16:57):
a whole lot of reasons why we shouldn't go down
the road of the intellatrial health regulation amendments. But people
need to step back and realize that the whole thing
is is just really based on falsehoods, and so we
shouldn't even be arguing over these nuances.

Speaker 2 (17:14):
What do you say based on falsehood's The word fear
springs to mind and that's what drives it mostly.

Speaker 3 (17:22):
It is it's very easy to get people scared of
infectious diseases. One hundred years ago, if you had eight kids,
you expected two or three of them to die in childhood,
and that almost never happens now. And it's actually it's
not vaccination that's done and it helps a little bit,
but it's mostly better living conditions, better food, better sanitation,

(17:44):
and this most of them mortally went away before we
had mass vaccination for first diseases. So and antibiotics obviously
help with inside childhood pneumonia. So infectious disease has become
relatively rare so to your infectious disease, but the fear
has detainly increased, and it's it's almost as if his

(18:05):
absence makes it more scary. Whereas you know, if you go,
say to some Subaharan African country, where it's pretty common
for a few children in a class to die before
that class has finished primary school, there's not this hysteria
over something like COVID.

Speaker 2 (18:25):
You mentioned the fauci a moment ago. He is probably
the head hon show, if I may put it that way,
on the planet with regard to misleading and a driving force.
If you disagree with me, say.

Speaker 3 (18:40):
So, yeah, I do. I do disagree. I agree he
was misinfoming people. And I mean he admits his published
papers saying the vaccine was never likely to work, and
he said he deliberately misled people on not wear the
mass work or not et cetera. I think he's sort
of small fry in a way. I think this is

(19:03):
a huge finance driven issue. The Western world is largely
run by very large finance corporations, and the large corporations
that they have majority shareholdings in, or are the larger
shareholders in, like media, Farmer, et cetera, and they are

(19:23):
pulling the strings. The World Economic Forum has for the
last twenty years, all our leaders have trotted off to
Davos every year to meet with all these people behind
closed doors and do their deals. And they have been,
as Klaus Schwab said a few years ago, they've been
training the leaders of many countries. And well, we're well

(19:46):
familiar with that. Yes. So I think people like Fauci
are doing what they're paid to do, and very willingly perhaps,
But I think this is more a sort of it's
an inevigable consequence of for profit companies that are no
longer bound to any nation state and normal set of laws,

(20:11):
and are so big that they can essentially change the
laws to suit themselves.

Speaker 2 (20:16):
Look, let me let me counter you, because I don't
entirely agree with you, and I'm both to say it.
But Fai Fauci was the public face. He was in
the highest paid job in the US civil Service. He
knew at the time, and you just said that he
admitted these things. He knew at the time that it

(20:38):
was bullshit, but he proceeded. Now, he didn't have to
do that. You didn't do that. You've been you've been
campaigning on a line of it's much closer to the
truth than Fauci ever did. And Fauci was involved in
the manipulation and the shall we say, underground activities that

(20:58):
contributed to where things got. So surely it's got to
be on his shoulders to some considerable degree.

Speaker 3 (21:07):
I agree. Yeah, when I say is one of the
mini when.

Speaker 2 (21:11):
I but when I when I say he is the
head honchow. His appearance was of that because he was
constantly being by by American media, in particular, being sought
out to confirm this and that and something else, and
he happily appears that he happily did so.

Speaker 3 (21:35):
No, I agree with that so and he could have
done otherwise. But there's a good book come out recently
by Debbie Luhrmann's I read it the other day that
they will come back. But essentially it lays out the
role of the security contexts behind COVID. It's very interesting

(21:57):
that the US response was not run by the public
Health Service, it wasn't run by an i H or CDC.
It was run by the security services. And they overtly
took it over in mid March and were less from
it before then, and they put Deborah Berks into place, etc.

(22:17):
And it's laid out very well in this book. And
the Dutch governors admitted that the situation was similar over
there and within NATO, and I suspect other countries were
the same. You could argue that they saw this as
a bio weapon threat from China or something, although it
doesn't wick it well because it's pretty clear that they

(22:41):
were closely involved with Fauchi. The NIH funded the development
of coronavirus. The gain of function research on coronavirus is
that very likely result in COVID, but it's much deeper
than a few people in a public health service misrepresenting
the truth and misrepresenting how to deal with a virus

(23:04):
that killed people in average age of over seventy five.
So there was something probably much more unpleasant going on
in the background. The head of CDC at the time
is more recently Robert Redford read Redburn. Anyway, he has
said quite openly that it was probably gained a function

(23:26):
research and that a lot of the response was completely wrong,
not a public health response. But he could again, he
could have said that at the time, but instead he
stood in Congress and said that masks are the best
way for stopping a virus. Do you think of his name?
Wasn't Robert read for the Act? There? No the actor.

(23:50):
I feel stupid not remembering. Now it'll come back.

Speaker 2 (23:53):
I know the I know the feeling by the way
the book is the Deep State goes viral. Yes, I've
got I've got a pile of books over there. In fact,
there's two piles now of books that have arrived and
I haven't yet had a chance to look. I just
keep I can't help myself anyway, I've got the book.
That's the point I feel written. I shall now refer

(24:15):
to it a little a little more. Look, actually, while
while we're at that point, there is a growing desire
and drive I think to stop talking about COVID, get
over it, move on. You know, some people think that
it's been and gone and there's no point in spending
any more time on it.

Speaker 3 (24:34):
What do you say to that. Well, firstly, there I mean,
it is still being pushed. The vaccinations are still being pushed.
There's been an issue in the US as a new
moderna version has just been approved for children, et cetera,
so that the issue hasn't gone away. It illustrated a

(24:57):
government slash corporate partnership which deliberately misled the public on
a massive scale and in the process made a very
small percentage of population extremely rich. Well, most people got
much poorer, many people lost their businesses, all the rest
of it, and the whole pandemic agenda that is going forward.

(25:19):
So in a few days time, the time expires to
reject the International Health Regulation amendments, et cetera. We had
the Pandemic Agreement more or less agreed last May so
just recently, and there is a whole string of other
things that are going on around who and world Bank,
et cetera on pandemics, So they're designed now to repeat

(25:42):
what happened COVID frequently, and so COVID is just the start.
So if we think COVID's gone away and the problem
has gone away, we're sort of fooling ourselves, and the
harms that we're done through COVID will be multiplied over
the next decade or two. We are being misled deliberately

(26:02):
by these agencies in order to really do to serve
the interests of a very small, very powerful and rich
group of corporations and people. And if we don't recognize that,
then we probably won't have a democracy anymore. So it's
sort of an existential threat to democracy, not to our health,

(26:26):
this whole agenda, and I think we need to take
that seriously. And if you read Debbie's book, Got, it
showed us regarding the deep state, and it's a triggering term.
But it's the very large bureaucracies that have grown up
to run Western countries and are very linked with the

(26:48):
military industrial complex Eisenhower told us about, and the large
corporations for financial institutions which are all tied together through
the Builderberg Group and the Council for foreign relations, et cetera.
I mean, these aren't fallacies. These are real things that
actually exist, actually meet regularly, and actually are highly in
cluential on our governments and our societies. So we can

(27:13):
ignore all that and just go down this road of
essentially losing our whole democratic process and becoming peasants again
of a small elite who say openly they want to
run the country and they want to run the world,
and to a largest that not have countries, or we

(27:35):
can push back on this and just insist on having
a sort of society that's based on truth.

Speaker 2 (27:44):
Well, when you've got a government that was elected entirely
because of the monstrosity that preceded it, when you've got
a government like that that still is pushing net zero
and is signing up to the Who's new amendments, when

(28:07):
there is plenty of evidence as you've as you've pointed
out numerous times, and you're not alone and again today
that you've got to ask yourself the question, are these
people or fools? And while while I'm on the subject,
from a local media minor media outlet, WHO News, doctor
Ashley Bloomfield spearheads the health regulations overhaul. This goes back

(28:31):
to November of twenty three. Ashley Broomfield co chairs the
WHO group revising International Health Protocols. Proposed revisions are aimed
at strengthening international health regulations post COVID one Health Initiative
aims to integrate health policy with climate action. I mean

(28:51):
that you are concerns arise over national sovereignty versus who's
expanded role. But what is the reality and how real
is the threat digital health certificates will curtail travel and
personal freedoms? Why is it that more people in positions
of influence like the media no longer or appear to

(29:16):
be interested in tracking down the trees.

Speaker 3 (29:19):
Yeah, first, that's the head of the CDC with Robert Redfield. Apologies,
you can see why I got confused. I can the
media are not interested. So in the US, for instance,
the media are that they're by far their largest sponsor

(29:40):
in advertising and in direct sponsorship of commentators, many of
whom are a majority paid by the script are paid
by Farmer. So the pharmaceutical industry is hugely influential and
probably without a lot of these media organizations will close down.
So to them, they sort of haven't got a choice

(30:02):
if they want to exist the sort of legacy media,
then they have to bow to farmer and they're not
going to get money from farmer if they don't toe
the line, and if they're openly critical and so damage
farmer profits. It's just it's not complicated, is sort of obvious.

(30:22):
Business is a business, and a lot of the commentators
that are well known on US media, a large part
of their salaries comes directly from farmer. So there are
significant ones like Amerson Cooper, who you know it is
set up to eighty ninety percent in several million a
year are paid by companies like Pfizer, and this is

(30:47):
public records. They also pay very significantly to the campaign
funds of politicians, et cetera. So we have to accept
that this is sort of what you would expect in
the sort of society.

Speaker 2 (31:02):
That we've now built, but accept if we accept that,
if we accept that, then we don't have a future
as individuals, as.

Speaker 3 (31:13):
Society. Yeah, I mean, you know, if you allow pharmaceutical
companies freedom from liability for a large part of their
product portfolio, as is the case with vaccines for certainly
vaccines for children, then the past history of the pharmaceutical
industry is the largest proven for all cases on Earth.

(31:38):
So you would expect those companies, if you give them
freedom for liability, to push the limits, etc. And commit
fraud again because their role, as they see it, is
to make as much money as possible. If you allow
the regulartory agencies to get to most of their money
from the pharmaceutical industry that is supposed to be regulating

(32:01):
and direct money from pharmaceutical investors, private individuals as we
are in the US, the UK, Australia, et cetera, then
again you would expect over a few years a decade
or so, that there will be a very close relationship
and you will start having people working in those regular

(32:23):
tre agencies doing favors for the pharmaceutical industry because they
will pay far more in a couple of years time
in a new job. So it's you know, we have
to face this and realize the sort of structures that
we've built and then fix those structures so that they're

(32:44):
not so open to abuse. Australia used to have a
law when I was a kid growing up there that
no one could own. It was something like more than
two newspapers or one TV station, that sort of thing,
and then they poured it all down I think in
the nineteen eighties, and now you can sort of own
what you like, and of course that is going to

(33:08):
bring more concentration and media, and of course that makes
it much more open for private for huge multinational corporations
with more money than austraateity has got to own, influence,
own the country. What we hear. Yes, So none of
this is surprising, and COVID is a symptom of this.

(33:29):
We were massively missled by the media. And you can
argue about why the ABC gets on board because they're
supposedly not so subject to sponsorship, but they seem to
want to fit in. But this is what you'd expect.
You to expect the medical journals to favor the pharmaceutical
industry because a lot of their money comes from there.

(33:50):
They are for profit businesses owned by larger publishing houses
that are owned by Blackrock and Vanguard. So again it's
not surprising, it's just logical the journal industry. Medical journals
will print, obviously rubbish on the origins of COVID, and

(34:12):
they'll print stuff, you know, the denigrating alternative treatments. We're
familiar with that obviously, fraudulent, but this happened during COVID,
and you know, you can show later they're fraudulent, but
it doesn't matter because everyone doesn't. No one remembers that.
They just remember the original article. So they were actively

(34:33):
playing a role of helping the pharmaceutical industry and the
institution to own that, which are the same institutions that
own them. So again, you know, we've got away from
nation states and where we have this globalist economy and
this is the sort of thing it's going to drive.

Speaker 2 (34:52):
Well, let me quote you something from from the piece
that we started discussing an update on international Health regulation
amendments and not to be down. The World Bank teamed
up with the WHO to provide an explanatory graphic in
the few report aimed at convincing our governments to divert

(35:12):
funds to pandemics rather than the major endemic diseases malaria, tuberculosis,
and HIV AIDS. To justify public money being allocated to
profitable pandemic preparedness rather than high burden diseases, they needed
to show that pandemics cost economies far more. They drew

(35:32):
a line for malaria, tuberculosis and HIV AIDS combined with
combined at twenty two billion dollars per year, probably about
one or two percent of the true cost. They then
drew a wavy line above this to indicate that SAS
won eight hundred and forty deaths and MERS about eight

(35:53):
hundred deaths, cost fifty to seventy billion. COVID has costed
it over nine trillion, which clearly includes costs of lockdowns
and incentive packages from extraordinary response. A Lancer article that
the WHO would have previously agreed with estimated annual economic

(36:14):
costs of tuberculosis alone at five hundred and eight billion,
but the WHO and the World Bank chose twenty two
billion for TB malaria at HIV. So there is another
piece that I want to stack up against this, and
that was that was to do with the WHO not

(36:36):
being survivable, that it's an outdated, an outdated organization and
it can't survive.

Speaker 3 (36:44):
You say, yeah, well, it's hard to come back from
that graphic, isn't it. I mean, what they're doing and
this is that graphic was World Bank, who is in
their main report to the G twenty meeting in Indonesia
twenty twenty two, to count the G twenty successfully to
issue strong statements backing the IHR amendments. The pandemic human

(37:10):
it yeah is I mean, you look at it and
it's just it's appalling. So the cost of HIV. So
they're trying to get across the idea that pandemics cost way,
way more than all these other diseases. But they can

(37:30):
only apart from COVID, have got diseases there they killed
less than twenty thousand people in total, and the cost
of comparing them, they're comparing them with malaria to ber
closer HIV. As you said, the true cost of those
is probably about based on that lanced article that five

(37:54):
hundred and eighty billion four to be alone. It's probably
with HIV and malaria. It depends how your costs is,
but you could say one and a half trillion or
something like that. And that's that's without the sort of
response which we did for COVID, which is extremely cost

(38:15):
This is just the cost of people dying and trying
to deal with it. The costs that they include for
COVID to get to nine trillion include several trillion in
incentive packages in the US and the cost of closing
down economies and closing supply lines and sending everyone home

(38:36):
from factories, and they're pretending that's COVID cost of pandemic cost.
So it's the organization, this is a world health organization.
They know that this is massively misleading and essentially rubbish,
and that certainly the costing of the endemic diseases they're
comparing outbreaks with is essentially a lie. So they know

(39:00):
this and they still publish it, and they send it
to the g twenty meeting, where well the heads of
state or there hangers on look at it and put
out a statement saying, this is terrible. We have to
fix this. We need to get lots of money for them.
So an organization that's gone that far off the rails

(39:25):
in terms of even bothering with the truth, it's hard
to see how you can actually use them for anything
that's beneficial in terms of, you know, the world's population,
the who has become increasingly centralized around Geneva, so you know,

(39:51):
the main health problems in the world is everyone would
know where people die earliest is in sub Saharan Africa,
parts of Asia, et cetera, where people are poor and
as a result, health systems are very poor and sanitation
is poor and nutrition is poor, and people live in
very crowded, poor living conditions, and that's why people dying.

(40:12):
They lack the very basics that we expect to have
when we go to the local clinic. So that's why
people are dying. But Who's whole thrust now is to
increase the number of people in Geneva, and that's what
GAVI is doing, that's what the Global Fund is doing.
Which over the last twenty years we've had this huge
increase in bureaucracies and whole new organizations arising or mostly

(40:37):
in Switzerland or in Western Europe and heavily staffed by
Europeans and Americans, and there's less and less emphasis on
the actual health problems, what's making a lot of people
in the world die much earlier than others. So, you know,

(40:57):
equity as they like to say, but seem to ignore.
So the whole direction of the organization is completely wrong
from a public health point of view. Public health is
about improving lifespan, improving the quality of life through better physical, mental,
and social health, as the Who's Constitution.

Speaker 2 (41:20):
Says, So you're talking about the who.

Speaker 3 (41:25):
When or the who. But also if you go back
twenty five years, thirty years, it's just the WHO essentially
in a bit of UNISEF. Now it's WHO, UNSEF, un AIDS,
GAVY for Vaccines, SEPI for vaccines, for pandemics exclusively, and

(41:47):
UNITID more commodities, the Global Fund, which is a huge funder.
I mean at these it's there to send money and
not so min stuff in other things. But it has
got a huge you know, it's now got over one
thousand people in its head office and when I first
visited it had twelve. But in two thousand and two

(42:08):
and they told me in that little office basement of
a building that they weren't going to expand anymore. So
we've created this sort of bureaucratic monster that is expanding
itself because you can always think of more reasons to
have more people in Geneva to do more important work
to save the world. And what's actually killing the world,

(42:32):
which is tuberculosis and poor nutrition and malaria and the
lack of basic care in a lot of countries and
very poor health systems due to poor economies. That's being
increasingly neglected by these organizations.

Speaker 2 (42:49):
So the article that you wrote along with some Ramesh,
the WHO cannot be saved last paragraph. The Trump administration's
actions are an opportunity to rebase international health cooperation on
widely recognized standards of ethics and human rights if we
can even remember them. Countries and populations should be back

(43:12):
in control, and those seeking profit from illness should have
no role in decision making. The WHO, at nearly eighty
years of age, comes from a bygone era. It is
increasingly estranged from its world. We can do better fundamental
change and the way we manage international health cooperation will
be painful but ultimately healthy. But the WHO, when you

(43:39):
say that it cannot be saved, it's surviving, isn't it.

Speaker 3 (43:43):
Yeah, And I would say it's extremely highly unlikely to
be savable. You can never say cannot. We know we
did for the article, but we're trying to get across
it can't be safe in its present form. It's built
on increasingly on as us of falla season lies, and
it's increasingly beholden to the private sector, and eventually it's

(44:09):
not going to be viable anymore. It's going to lose
its legitimacy completely. There is a place for an international
health organization. It's useful to have somewhere where you can
go and meet, where you can have some basic norms
or standards that you will try to adhere to to
help each other. And it's useful to have organizations that

(44:31):
help countries that have less resources and you do have
outbreaks or have bad chronic disease, and it's in our
mutual interest to do that. That can be bilateral, or
it can be a multilateral like the WHO, but there
has to be a lot of limits on the way
it works. And I think people thought that WHO had

(44:54):
them originally it had very little private funding, the sort
of firewall between it and the private sector, et cetera.
Most of that has gone away, so remission. I think
that there is definitely a place for an interest or
health organization, but the WHO is increasingly going off in

(45:16):
the opposite direction from what an interestal health organization should be.

Speaker 2 (45:21):
You've mentioned GABBY a couple of times, and I have
a feeling that most people don't know what GABBY is
or anything about it. And I say that because until
I read your material, I was in that position. So
defunding Gabby an important step toward the decolonization, and the
first subheaving is our age old argument with pathogens, take

(45:46):
it wherever you want to go.

Speaker 3 (45:48):
Okay, Yeah, So GAV is an organization, a large one
now set up by Bill Gates and a number of
countries in about two thousand and one exclusively to increase
access to vaccination in low income countries. That on his zone,
could be a good thing. Some vaccines can be very

(46:08):
useful in a lot of circumstances. The problem when you
go down that road is that you produce an organization,
highly funded, with a large bureaucracy, whose sole purpose is
not to improve public health and improve give people the
best health possible in their circumstances. The whole purpose of

(46:31):
this organization is to increase the flow of commodity, and
they work very closely and they're structured with the private sector.
The people who produce those commodities actually on its boort,
so it has a very close relationship with the manufacturers.
So rather than GAVY being about public health, it's not.

(46:52):
It's about working with vaccine manufacturers to increase markets for vaccines.
That's the role of GAVY. There can be a good
aspect to that, but the problem is that, as I
said earlier, the reason, and this is undeniable, This isn't controversial.
The reason we lived much longer in wealthy countries now
than we did one hundred hundred and fifty years ago

(47:14):
is because we have this much better sanitation, nutrition, et cetera.
Nearly all mortality from measles, from even potassis and so on.
Tennus we're going away before we had mass vaccination, or
they're on a trajectory that continued unchanged when vaccination started.

(47:34):
In the case of measles in most western countries, about
ninety five to ninety eight percent mortality had gone away
before the vaccine. Mass vaccination came. So mass vaccination helped
get rid of the virus, but did very little to
overall mortality because people would already stop dying from measles
because they weren't as vita an a deficient and as

(47:55):
deficient in other things which our bodies need to fight
a virus. So this isn't controversial. It's not pro or
anti vaxi. Is just the facts that I was taught
in medical school, and that is in is demonstrated in
the data from the Australian government, the UK government, the
American government, et cetera. The best way it would seem

(48:17):
to improve mortality, and there's very good efferences for this
as well in low income countries. Is to address these
drivers of good health first, sanitation, nutrition, et cetera. And
then you can say, oh, there's a specific problem because
a vaccine kill it helps with a specific disease it doesn't.

(48:38):
So you can stop someone dying of measles, and they
die of malaria in six months time because they're in
an area with a very poor health system, they're poorly
nourished and they're in very crowdic conditions, et cetera. Or
they can die of pneumonia or whatever. So the vaccine
will save them from measles, and you can tick the

(49:00):
box on that, but they've died six months later because
of all the other underlying conditions that they had that
made them much more susceptible to infectious disease. So you
can fix that by concentrating on nutrition, concentrating on sanitation.
So that would save more people probably than GAVY is

(49:23):
saving with vaccines, and there's a good basis for saying that.
But there is no GAVY for nutrition, there is no
GAVY for sanitation, and there is no private sector that's
going to get rich off those. So there's a huge
momentum behind GAVI that is selling a commodity that people
are getting rich on. We have reduced funding for nutrition

(49:47):
globally over the last five years, so we will sell
more vaccines, We'll get more vaccines out through GAVY, but
that is not going to have anywhere near as big
an influence on outcomes on health. So we have the
same problem with some of the SEPPI. As a class

(50:08):
example which is seven twenty seventeen at the World Economic
Forum by again Gates Foundation, Welcome Trust and India, Norway,
couple of other countries. It is exclusively for pandemics, which
when it was formed hadn't really happened for a century,

(50:29):
and it's almost exclusively for vaccines for those pandemics. So
you have hundreds of people whose sole purpose is to
produce vaccines for pandemics and to convince people that that
should be funded more. They're not interested in malaria, TBHIV.

(50:50):
They would draw graphs like we saw from who the
show that those diseases have very little impact, but there's
an enormous impact from outbreaks because this is what will
get them funded and keep their salaries and keep their
sponsors happy. So we've built in international public health this

(51:11):
series of agencies that we didn't have before whose sole
purpose is getting commodities out that are profitable to large corporations.
There's nothing wrong with making a profit from health, but
it has to be in a way that is in
line with overall health needs. It can't be an end

(51:34):
unto itself. And if you have an agency that's just
concentrated on getting commodities out, it becomes an end to itself.
So you want to get vaccines out, and you can
tick the box saying we got one hundred million doses
of a measles vaccine out. Therefore you tick the box.
We saved I don't know, five million lives of children.

(51:56):
Many of those children died of something else in the
next year or two, but that doesn't matter. That's that's
not our problem. That's not our remit. Our remit is
not public health. Our remit is measles vaccine. So this
is international public health now, who is twenty five percent
funded now by the private sector, and most of the

(52:16):
other funding comes from countries with large pharmaceutical industries, and
all the private funding in the seventy eighty percent of
the public funding is specified which means who has to
do what the funder says. They're not just given the
money to WHO. They're give them money WHO to do
a certain thing, particularly around health emergencies. So the WHO

(52:42):
itself is becoming like GAVI, like SEPI. It's becoming oriented
towards the commodities that its sponsors are very interested in,
rather than being able to step back and have a
look at public health. And so what ramession I pointing
out is that we need a very different agency with

(53:03):
very different rules that can actually keep that broader focus
success that you're having. Do you think there are some
countries that are concerned that there's a significant concern in
African countries they don't want to get rid of the
WHO without a good replacement because there are you know,
they gain, They do have problems with TV milor and

(53:26):
they gain from the who's work in a lot of areas.
It's not doing what they would like, but it is
better than not having it at all for them. The
US has, but if they had a good alternative, then
I think there'll be a lot of interest in going
to an alternative that isn't just where most of the

(53:46):
money doesn't go to Western corporation's Western individuals, but actually
that they are able to use it to improve their
health systems and improve the underlying drivers of health, because
then they can improve their economy. So they put to
their people, et cetera. And all countries are you know,
there's corruption everywhere, there's governments that are put of self

(54:07):
interested people everywhere, But in general, I think most countries
in Africa are interested in improving their economies overall and
changing the way that the balance in health and in
other areas between where the money goes between Western corporations
and themselves. The US has dropped out of who or

(54:29):
is doing so. Argentina says the same. I think that
will help because at a minimum, it will open the
door for alternative approaches. They haven't said what they want
is an alternative. The US was particularly concerned that they
were giving too much money to who and China wasn't

(54:50):
giving enough, et cetera. They haven't really articulated the problem
with the way the money is spent, and that is
partly because US corporations are benefiting from this. But at
least take making a step that far, it opens the
door for them to have a bit more to think

(55:12):
of you know what would on an alternative international health
agency look like, and how do you limit its ability
over to overstep as the who has and defunding GAVY,
which the US has done, I think is a good thing.
It won't kill huge numbers of people, as you know,

(55:33):
people pretending. Firstly, because vaccines play a role, but they're
not the primary reason how we stop people dying. Secondly,
because those funds will go in some other way. They don't.
The money doesn't simply disappear, It goes into other areas
of the economy or other areas of health thereas, but

(55:56):
lateral support and other mechanisms that government can use that
are more palatable to the current US government. So there
are good alternatives to GAVY that don't concentrate so much
wealth in Switzerland but actually send it to the countries concerned.
So the hope is that they will start to open up.

Speaker 2 (56:19):
Let me get into the conspiratorial aspect of things, just
just briefly. Not necessarily conspiratorial, but you know they can
be delecated.

Speaker 3 (56:28):
That title.

Speaker 2 (56:29):
How much of all the all the stuff that we
talk that you talk about, that we read and discuss,
is leading to a much more controlled environment in pretty
much all democratic countries are.

Speaker 3 (56:46):
In eating in the way of vaccine passports and that
sort of Yeah, yeah, it's not conspiratorial, is it. It's real. Yeah,
they're the EU has work with the WHO on a
vaccine passport, which they all bring in as soon as
they can. I expect then they will start to put
things like flu vaccine, which is no one has shown

(57:07):
any impact of more on mortality from flu vaccine, but
they will put it on and it'll be driven by
they would say public health, but in the end it's
going to be profit because there's no really good public
health arguments for this. They had vaccine passports in COVID
so that you couldn't go if you weren't vaccinated with

(57:28):
a vaccine that didn't stop transmission at all, and that
there's evidence of its good associations. For instance, a Cleveland
clinic has shown a very strong association rapidly of the
more boosters you've had, the more frequently you get COVID.
So they insisted you get a vaccine like that to

(57:51):
go from a country that had endemic sarskov two virus
to another country that had endemic sarscobe two virus. So
there's absolutely no logic in this whatsoever. It doesn't matter
if you travel or stay home. The virus is in
both places anyway, so travel doesn't matter, and logic didn't

(58:15):
come into it. They had a vaccine powerful and they
used it, So it's hard to come up with any
logical reason for that other than coercing vaccination. And lots
of people had their vaccination so that they could visit
relatives or go on holiday, et cetera because of that,
so that will happen again. The CBDC is being accelerated

(58:37):
in Europe. A sort of underline I think has said
that they're trying to get out by October, so that's
a real thing. It allows governments to have much more
control over expenditure of their citizens. That's a real thing.
It's not a conspiracy. The Bank of International Settlements is

(58:57):
they're saying this is important to allow governments to have
more control over what their citizens buy. So public health
is being used to further this agenda, I think, because
as we said at the start, it's very easy to
engender fear through infecious disease, and when people are fearful,

(59:21):
they will allow things and impingent on their freedom which
they wouldn't normally allow, and they also they simply don't
think straight.

Speaker 2 (59:30):
Well, does it not fall into the conspiracy framework at
least a little because you're being told you've you've got
to get it for one thing, which is you've just
described as a nonsense, but it will be eventually employed
for a whole lot of other things that if they
publicized it now would probably cause a bit of rebellion.

(59:55):
That fair enough, I hope.

Speaker 3 (59:56):
So yeah, well, I think I think, you know, things
are happening slowly, that they're happening fast in a way,
but in human terms, you know, it's something tas more
than a week. We think it's slow. So if we
look back to the nineteen nineties and we compare to today,

(01:00:18):
we could not have imagined that we would even be
discussing this. I remember in Australia in the nineteen eighties
and rejected the very idea of a digital idea that
there was a national outcry when the government tried to
introduce and they backed off. Now, people don't blink, there's

(01:00:39):
going to be digital ideas in all over the world.
It's hard to know. Yeah, these things are coming quite rapidly,
but slow enough that they don't all come up on
the same day or the same week, and so it
seems slow to us, and we forget very quickly what
things were like a few years earlier. There's no reason

(01:01:02):
for it from a public health point of view that
they're being pushed as a public health response, but they're not.
It's illogical from a public health point of view. Well,
I have a little vested interest in the original question
because I'm I'm now complete. I think I finished up yesterday.

Speaker 2 (01:01:22):
But the hurdles that I had to jump to take
this trip that we're about to depart on all out
of all proportion to what it used to be. Once
you've got your passport, you get in the plane, you
go to a country, show your passport, and that's all.
But now you've got I mean, I've just gone through

(01:01:42):
a couple of attempts at getting a visa for Turkey
because we're spending a couple of nights in port on
a cruise, and that was very, very testing. A friend
of mine took an hour and a quarter to get through.
It just drives you crazy.

Speaker 3 (01:02:01):
I've got UK citizenship and I am going there soon.
I have to They now need a visa for my children. Yeah, so.

Speaker 2 (01:02:11):
It's well actually, actually yes, I had to get a
visa too, but that that one was easy compared to
the to the other one. And we're talking about requiring
visas for young children. Yeah, I mean it's interesting. I mean, yes,
we have to control immigration, et cetera. And I actually

(01:02:35):
think more and more that nation states with borders are
essential for maintaining democracy.

Speaker 3 (01:02:42):
Absolutely, yes, I mean it's an interesting one, isn't it.
The you know, here I am complaining about my children
getting a visa, but I do think that we need
to control who's crossing borders for all sorts of reasons,
mainly so that we can continue to have a say
in how we are governed. Unquestionable. Well, there's yes, there's

(01:03:08):
maybe this is an example of a change that you
could argue has some sense behind it, but unfortunately, I
think it is going to be more about governments tracking
what we do.

Speaker 2 (01:03:24):
And well, it's building a base, it's building an information base.
I mean, to get the Turkey get the Turkey issue.
And I had to provide my deceased parents full names
as well as some some other things, and you and
you just wonder why mm hmm.

Speaker 3 (01:03:44):
Anyway.

Speaker 2 (01:03:46):
It The very easy approach to that is to say, oh,
well that's the way it is, just get on with it.

Speaker 3 (01:03:51):
But that gets under my skin. There's the term proportionate,
which is always a hard one, but it does have
some Arendalmus I think. I mean, essentially, I think when
a government introduces a rule, they should be able to
show a compelling why it is necessary.

Speaker 2 (01:04:10):
Well, if they don't and they just do it, you
know you're on the way to a destination you don't
want to be at.

Speaker 3 (01:04:17):
Yeah, and that comes back to the COVID passports. There
isn't a compelling reason, so therefore you're on a certain
destination exactly. I think there is a lot of people
waking up more and more to a concern about what
is going on. It's been interesting in the US watching

(01:04:37):
the whole Epstein files and so on recently that I think,
far more than in the past, people are not accepting
what they're being told by governments, and there's probably a result.
I think what's happened over the last five years has
really shaken a large part of the population's faith in

(01:04:58):
in bureaucracies and in the way we governed and our
institutions so I think that's very promising.

Speaker 2 (01:05:05):
I'll give you a just finally, I'll give you you
an example that I consider to be valid, and that
is the migration movements all over the world. Europe stands out,
but even countries like Australia and New Zealand are allowing,
in fact begging, a lot of people to come live here.

(01:05:29):
And I don't believe that there is enough limitation on
who comes into a country in this day and age.
It's they want people. But the question is why do
they want so many people when already there's a housing
crisis in Australia and New Zealand and other crises as well.
Why do they want people from places that are likely

(01:05:51):
to cause trouble or have a different, totally different, out
of step culture or cultural background, in other words, a
disruption force. And you can't help but wonder if that
has something to do with changing the the foundations of
a country or removing the foundations of a country perhaps

(01:06:15):
rather than changing well that isn't that change.

Speaker 3 (01:06:18):
If you look at Europe, you wonder whether the European
Commission is quite interested in essentially doing away with the
nation states of Europe and just having one big conglomerate
and that they seem to be pushing quite strongly in
that direction. Yeah, it's I mean, immigration's really difficult. The

(01:06:40):
I mean one of the reasons for it is there
are a number of reasons. One is this increasing inequality
between countries that happen in COVID. We've been pushing for
a long time, and people leave countries for a reason.
And most of the European immigrants that have just turned
up have come from places like Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and

(01:07:05):
so on, which were subject to invasions and deliberate disruption
by European Western countries, and the others are coming from
war torn and very poor countries, and there's not a
lot of effort to try to undo that sort of approach.

(01:07:27):
We've seen it perhaps continuing in the Middle East in
the last month or two. So if you destroy a country,
you expect people to leave it. And I think we're
reaping some of what we've sown in that situation. That
there's also a real issue of fertility, and about half

(01:07:48):
the world now has fertility rates below replacement. So the
governments will argue that they're trying to get young people
in two help with that but there'll be two approach.
That one will be to bring people in on a

(01:08:09):
basis of skills rather than people who may not be
contributing much. And the other one is to well, maybe
you should start thinking about why you're losing fertility and
address that.

Speaker 2 (01:08:25):
Look, if I may take just a little more of
your time, because I've thought of two things. One last
night was watching Watching Sky Australia and it had to
do with the state of Victoria, your home state, my
home state, and the comment was made that Melbourne is
now the anti Semitic capital of the world, and they

(01:08:48):
played they played.

Speaker 3 (01:08:49):
A video with.

Speaker 2 (01:08:52):
A disguised individual, very disguised, who was fancying himself as
Darth Vader in the voice you know what I mean,
and he was referring to a couple of events that
have taken place very recently in Melbourne, serious events, attacks

(01:09:13):
and destruction, and said that the next one is coming
and it will be much worse. The one thought that
I had when I was watching this and listening to
it was this guy, while the voice was slowed down
and affected, was actually speaking extremely good English. There was

(01:09:35):
no accent outside of side of home. And he was
a well educated individual you could tell from the words.

Speaker 3 (01:09:46):
That he used and the.

Speaker 2 (01:09:49):
Pronouncement of them, and the first thing that was said
after they came out of that and started the panel
started discussing, it was exactly that this is not any
wally who's just pulling strings. This was somebody who knew
what they were doing and knew how to go about it,
and they considered it as you would and I did,

(01:10:12):
to be very serious. But to be tag the antisemitic
capital of the world is I think the result of
what's gone before obviously and the state of the state
of Victoria for such a lexy period of time now,
And it's not good comment. Yeah, I don't know the
incidence you mentioned, but I mean, one thing that worries

(01:10:34):
me with this and the whole idea of hate speech
and so on, is that it is being promoted to
justify increased censorship. And I think increased censorship in the
end will increase divisions and.

Speaker 3 (01:10:51):
Hate and so on. If you get people who are
spouting some idiotic ideology, I think you should make sure
everyone hears them so that they realize what idiots they are.
And that really goes for any overly rate. It's just ideology.
It's it's easy to think that, you know, simply skin

(01:11:14):
color or whatever completely changes the way a person works.
I mean, culture is important, and there are different cultures,
and it's very sensible to say people have highly different cultures.
You know, if you you can have a clash of cultures,
if you have people from very different backgrounds, and especially

(01:11:36):
some of those are traumatized by war and all the
rest of it, and you've dump huge numbers in a
country without support, then you're going to have a breakdown
of society. That's very different from racism, which is just
providing people on the basis of how they look, et cetera,

(01:11:58):
or where they came from and or you know, whether
they're Jewish or Roma or New Zealand or whatever, so
which is just stupid. And I think those things we
need to talk about them more. And I think we
should go the opposite of censorship and hate speech. I

(01:12:20):
think we should be shastering what's being said out there
very openly so that people can see how mad it is.

Speaker 2 (01:12:29):
Indeed, David has been a very informative conversation we've had.
I think I congratulate you on your stand and well,
more power to your writing. I think, thanks Satan, thanks
for the chat. So Thanksalk, thank you. It was and
we won't leave it so long. Next time good.

Speaker 3 (01:13:07):
I went to the mail room with missus producer for
two ninety three. Are you well laden?

Speaker 4 (01:13:11):
I'm fabulous, thank you.

Speaker 3 (01:13:13):
It is one week since we attended the funeral of
Yes it is, Yes it was. Do you want to
do you want to appraise the well?

Speaker 4 (01:13:23):
I'm a bit funny with funerals, but I mean, if
a funeral was amazing, that was an amazing funeral, and
it just highlighted how revered he was in many circles,
you know.

Speaker 3 (01:13:38):
Saint Joseph in Takapuna was packed out, over three hundred people.

Speaker 4 (01:13:41):
They reckon them, but people from all walks of life
clearly much loved man.

Speaker 2 (01:13:48):
Very sad indeed. And those grandkids, so are they gorgeous.

Speaker 4 (01:13:52):
Oh Christine, his wife was so elegant, and so were
the children. Fabulous children and grandchildren.

Speaker 2 (01:14:00):
All these little kids, you know, played their part and
did it perfectly. We have any number of emails about
last week's podcast and des but we can't do them all.

Speaker 4 (01:14:13):
So that's so my first one late and is from Tony.
He says, thank you so much, for a replaying Desert's interview.
What a wonderfully down to worth man with such an amazing,
caring career. It brought back to life. Our crews to
the UK cut short two days in with three weeks
sank it off Thailand. It's all ports closed entry. We

(01:14:34):
were granted approval to disembark in Perth, only to arrive
and be blocked by the premiere. There must have been
political involvement. Is under the cover of darkness, disembarked and
loaded onto buses under guard of the army, escorted through
empty streets by the police to board the last Air
New Zealand flight to land in Auckland. What a holiday

(01:14:54):
and insurance would cover the loss? My gosh, can you
imagine that? From Tony, He says, our condolences go to
the Gorman family. Such a sad loss, and Tony says
he's a long time and grateful listener.

Speaker 2 (01:15:08):
Tony, I'm glad that you're a long time a grateful
listener and I'm grateful to you. Thank you from Jeff.
Great to see you have a des Gorman tribute podcast.
I can't claim to have known Dez very well, but
our paths crossed briefly in the late nineties when I
worked for Ligans Institute and he was attached to Auckland
Medical School. He was a great guy and I'm proud

(01:15:30):
to have been one voice, no doubt, among many, that
suggested you reinterview him on your wonderful podcast. So that
would have been the first one that we played last week,
and there's two more, and I'm pondering.

Speaker 4 (01:15:46):
Laden Vincent says, I note with interest and amusement that
apparently TV and Z, in response to concerns of their
news coverage being unbiased, they quote have commissioned former ABC
and SBS executive Alan Sunderland to undertake some refresher training.
The Herald Report says, quote to do that successfully and meaningfully,

(01:16:08):
we want him to review a week of our content
and others news content in the market to see what
we are covering, what we are not and how we
are covering it. And Vincent goes on to say, I
would have thought that getting somebody from Australia's ABC to
critic TV and z's news operations would be like getting
the former Premier of the State of Victoria, Dan Andrews,
to offer his thoughts of how our former PM conducted

(01:16:31):
herself as she led this country, says Vincent, I can't
imagine TV and ZED would learn anything new, surprising or
indeed challenging from its own woke cousin from across the ditch.
Keep up the great podcasts, late, and as you head
quickly towards number three hundred, I'm amazed at how quickly
the time has always to.

Speaker 2 (01:16:51):
Buy vinctant, appreciate it and agree with you completely cast
When I read that, I almost fell apart, and you're
absolutely right in your assumption. Now from Murray, Wow, I
remember the podcast at the time. Such a clarity pity

(01:17:14):
he died so early and couldn't be around for the
Royal Commission. Such a loss to real academic clarity. Thank
you for remembering this. Because that was so short. I'll
do a second one, this one from Robin.

Speaker 3 (01:17:31):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:17:31):
I expected this. He was a source of sanity in
what was perhaps the most insane, divisive time in New
Zealand history, and all the while dealing with his own
life threatening illness. Blessings to all from Robin. I need
to say at this point, because it's appropriate after that comment,

(01:17:52):
that there's a handful of people who have made some criticism.
Some of it they believe is justified, and there may
be an argument for that, but now it's not the time.

Speaker 4 (01:18:03):
Latent Leon says, I attended a National Party meeting yesterday
where Simon Watts was the guest speaker. I waived the
book Climates Actually in the Air and challenged him to
read it. I stated a few facts from the book,
for example that seventy percent of gas emissions were from
volcanic activity and mankind cannot control that. I was surprised

(01:18:23):
to receive a round of applause when I sat down.
I've lent the book to a few friends and they
were grateful, but to my disappointment, others weren't interested. And
so then Leon goes on to ask of you how
you should know further your influence on this sort of
thing and what we can do. Then he says, I
continue to look forward to Wednesday evenings and enjoy your podcasts,

(01:18:46):
And that's from Leon.

Speaker 3 (01:18:47):
Leon, thank you. We've been at it for so many years.

Speaker 2 (01:18:52):
There's not a lot more that one can do except
keep at it as far as I'm concerned, and I
congratulate you, by the way on your stance with the book.

Speaker 3 (01:19:03):
But you were dealing with low wattage.

Speaker 2 (01:19:05):
I haven't listened to this week's podcast yet, but New
Zealand in the medical world has lost an important figure
with the death of Des Gorman. Rarely has there been
such an important thinker in our time. Your interviews with
him during COVID were outstanding. Guy Hatchett made some important
points about COVID health and the shots not vaccines, which

(01:19:29):
were detrimental to many people's lives. But I think the
driving force for our poor health is the huge percentage
of obese kiwis. We are the third most obese people
in the OECD. Everywhere you look, whether in person or
in a newspaper photo, obesity is outstanding, even among preschoolers
in gafes with their obese mothers. And to finish cantors

(01:19:52):
Owen's intellect is not a patch on Ben Shapiro's and
Tucker is becoming a parody of himself. I agree with
those sentiments, by the way, but everyone will be wondering
what on earth they're about.

Speaker 4 (01:20:04):
David Layton has sent your report on the latest US
Senate hearing into COVID jabs, and he says they say
big Farmer can't be sued in the US, So what
about in New Zealand? It is really quite shocking that
Fizer was able to sell their deadly concoction to the
New Zealand government without any legal consequences. Similarly, why haven't

(01:20:24):
government and health officials in New Zealand faced legal consequences
for the atrocity they inflicted on the people of New Zealand?

Speaker 3 (01:20:33):
And?

Speaker 2 (01:20:33):
From Tim, thank you so much for your weekly podcast
you eagerly awaited by me in some of my family
every week. I very much enjoyed listening to your tribute
to the amazing Professor Des Gorman and the repeat of
one five from the Madness Stays of twenty twenty one.
Dezz's insights and common sense approach for so many aspects

(01:20:56):
of our lives were welcome and influential. Most of the time.
I respected his courage to speak out and say whatever
he thought with little regard for the negative personal and
career consequence answers. He was for sure one of the
good guys.

Speaker 4 (01:21:12):
Layton Chris says, have people's attention spans decreased? Or are
we just overloaded with too much noise? In recent times?
The saying TLDR has cut through the clutter. It stands
for too long, didn't read TLDR is a summary of
the whole letting the reader know if it's worth their

(01:21:33):
time to digest the complete document. Sound Bye leadership isn't new.
In fact, the most effective communicators summarize their message in
one memorable sentence. Martin Luther King, I have a dream,
Winston Churchill, we will fight them on the beaches. We
shall never surrender. And Jacinda proclaimed We're a team of

(01:21:53):
five million. Rather than fighting this trend, let's compliment long
form journalism with a deep understanding of what the core
issue is and create memorable sound bites which move people
to action. People need sound by leadership because clarity equals action.
In a dark world, clear sound bites are a lighthouse

(01:22:16):
in the storm.

Speaker 3 (01:22:18):
And that's from Chris. Chris, Chris, thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:22:23):
And finally, there was one thing that was seared in
my mind when you first introduced Professor Des Gorman one
hundred and eighty seven podcasts ago, and I remember it
like it was yesterday. The most memorable part of the
podcast was your introduction of his credentials. It took you
about three minutes to list them all. I have not

(01:22:44):
heard of anyone on your podcast before or after des Gorman,
who had the insane amount of achievements he has had.
Ever since your podcast one five, his name has been
lodged in my head as a trusted, authoritative and wise
source of truth about all things New Zealand health. People

(01:23:05):
like des Gorman are rare, but they still live among us.
Two people that come to mind are doctor Elizabeth Rahter
and doctor Shane Ready, whom des Gorman had only good
things to say about.

Speaker 3 (01:23:18):
We stand with you in the good fight. It's worth it.

Speaker 2 (01:23:21):
Jin appreciate that as always. Now there was another contribution
that was made a couple of weeks back, and I
haven't yet employed it, and I don't think again, I
don't think that the mail room today is the right place.
So you will find this recorded input at the end
of the podcast, missus producer, Thank you, Thanks later. You

(01:23:46):
do realize that's you're going to be on a plane
next week.

Speaker 4 (01:23:48):
Mm.

Speaker 2 (01:23:50):
Sounds like the engine warming up a little. See now
it's time for a little catch up. In podcasts two
eighty we discussed AI. There were a couple of contributors.

(01:24:15):
The feedback varied, but one correspondent was particularly challenging. What
had been discussed, and I know the particular correspondent, and
as it happens, he was partly involved in a discussion
that was had in twenty twenty three and I'd forgotten
aught about it. However, I said to him, well, where's

(01:24:37):
your response. He said, I'll send it. And it took
a while to get here, two three weeks, and there
were a couple of weeks that I haven't utilized it
because it didn't suit, particularly last week with the concentration
on some sad matters. Now, before we indulge in this contribution,

(01:24:57):
I want to quote you something that I pulled out
of an article that I read just a very short
time ago today, and it occurred to me that this
might be a satisfactory way of introducing and moving into AI.
Just briefly at the end of the podcast. This is
out of an article that's got something to do with
other things, but it just appeared in the middle of it.

(01:25:20):
AI is the whiff of perfume that's supposed to mask
the stench of terminal moral decay. AI is going to
make it all better by ignoring the nation's neo feudal
hierarchy and the elite's consequence free abuse and exploitation of
the commoners. The truth is AI instantiates a particularly cruel
form of stupidity, a stupidity so profound that it is

(01:25:44):
blind to the cruelty of the status quo. It is
designed to protect from accountability. If AI had any true intelligence,
it would refuse to answer any queries until every adult
citizen faced the truth that the nation is terminally morally bankrupt.
Now under there's such a fanatically enforced taboo against calling

(01:26:05):
things by their real name. The United States of via
impunity cannot be called by its real name because its
illegitimacy would then be revealed. Now make of that whatever
you want. I just thought it was suitable to read
before this before we start. This is not Leyton Smith.
I repeat, I am not Layton Smith.

Speaker 5 (01:26:28):
I'm here to talk about podcasts two hundred and eighty six,
the one that had two ex physics chaps shouting at
their respective car stereos. Right, folks, let's cut through the waffle,
but with a kinder nod. From our research, it appears
that the main guest completed a non technical Oxford online
course in AI. No lines of code written, no messy

(01:26:50):
data sets, wrestled, no model building, pipelines tested, and no mathematics.
We may be wrong here, but from how he talked
about AI, we formed the view he hasn't had hands
on experience, so when he shares machine learning commentary it
can feel a little light weight. It appears he hasn't

(01:27:11):
yet had the chance to dig into feature engineering, data bias,
or hyper parameter tuning, the real nuts and bolts practitioners
work on every day. If you're after hands on insights
on the subject of AI, you'd probably want to talk
to people who have done it. You may want to
explore further leyton Old chap as for the notion that

(01:27:34):
AI could simply usher our MPs aside, Remember turkeys don't
vote for Christmas, and Parliament is festooned with turkeys. I'm
thinking primarily of the Green, Labor and Maori Party representatives
without their buy in, handing over the running of the
country and allowing AI to decide where to throw the

(01:27:55):
money to remains more day dream than democratic strategy. There's
no way they want to remove their snouts from that
particular trough. Now, while we're thinking of about those impressive
AI brains you hear about, you need to understand that
they're really vast predictive text engines, adept at finishing your sentences,

(01:28:16):
but lacking agency intent or the ability to plot a takeover.
They match patterns using statistics. They don't march armies. As
doctor Robinson says, matrices can't think, and AI or machine
learning is just a massive pile of matrix mathematics. While
we're at it, there was discussion about those little green

(01:28:38):
men dropping in and hacking our AI. Let's pause on
the tinfoil hats, the Fermi paradox, and the staggering energy
needs of interstellar travel under our current physics suggest we're
unlikely to see visitors anytime soon. It's a tough topic,
and I'm not surprised the media sometimes fumbles the details

(01:28:59):
and gets a bit excited. Wrestling with these cosmic questions
calls for serious scientific muscle. Finally, if you'd like a
gentle introduction to AI and machine learning, I refer you
to podcast one hundred and eighty seven the difference between
artificial intelligence and machine learning as an excellent starting point. Now,

(01:29:21):
if you don't mind, we will now go back to
shouting at our car stereos.

Speaker 2 (01:29:33):
Having heard that, let me digress just a moment. We
had Brexit, we had Donald Trump, We've had other matters
that have caused grief in relationships, broken marriages, broken relationships,
people taking to other people physically literally. So I had
this feeling that AI, particularly in its latest development, just

(01:29:57):
could be the cause of other breakups. It's just a
gut feel that people are taking sides, whether it's useless
or with a it's positive, or whatever interpretation you want
to put on it. So I say to what appeared
to be opponents in this discussion that if this goes

(01:30:19):
any further, I might have to pass on each of
your contacts to the other parties, and you can skirmish
all you want. In the meantime, I will await the
feedback from those who have heard it but have no
connection with it. So that will take us out for
podcasts two hundred and ninety three. We will be here

(01:30:43):
next week, after which we won't be here for a
few weeks. But I've already got some podcast interviews in
the can, and there'll be a couple two or three
replays as well, So we're going to keep rolling. And
one of the podcasts, because I mean asked by a
number of people, are you going to do one from

(01:31:04):
London with your son Kristen, and the answer is yes,
it's already arranged. We might even do too if we
can find proper cause. Anyway, we shall return next week
for two ninety four. In the meantime, if you want
to write to us, please do lately the NEWSTALKSB dot
co dot inzid or Carolyn the News Talks that Be

(01:31:24):
dot co dot inzet and as always, thank you so
much for listening and we shall talk soon.

Speaker 1 (01:31:37):
Thank you for more from News Talks the' b. Listen
live on air or online, and keep our shows with
you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio