Leighton Smith Podcast #325 - April 22nd 2026 - Guy Hatchard

"The science behind the risk of myocarditis following mRNA vaccination’, "A wake up call - The adverse health effects of forever genetic compounds” and "Biotech cannot be allowed a right to secrecy”.

These are all commentaries by Guy Hatchard PhD, published in the month of April. 

And after the failure of the Royal Commission on Covid-19, where to from here?

As he observes; “You can’t help but conclude that there has been a massive failure of individual and collective intelligence”.

Answers and analysis in a fulsome discussion with Guy Hatchard.

And we finish up in The Mailroom with Mrs Producer.

File your comments and complaints at [e-mail] OR [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 it B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of the sis, now the
Layton Smith Podcast powered by news talks it B.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to Podcast three hundred and twenty five for April
twenty second, twenty twenty six. The science behind the risk
of mayacarditis following mRNA vaccination. That's one, A wake up call,
the adverse health effects of forever genetic compounds That's two.
Biotech cannot be allowed a right to secrecy that's three.

(00:50):
All commentaries by Guy hatchet PhD in the month of
April and after the failure of the Royal Commission on
COVID nineteen where two from here now the answers and
commentary in a well a fulsome discussion with Guy Hatchett,
And just to emphasize the above, you can't help but
conclude that there has been a massive failure of individual

(01:13):
and collective intelligence. But first, last week's discussion with Lars
Schernekaer was very well received, very good feedback, very interesting feedback. Now,
if you missed it it was based essentially on met
zero with plenty of diversity. As a follow up, when

(01:34):
Simon Wacht, political advisor to Sweden's Minister for energy, posted
on X last Wednesday with a simple quote wow incredible
article at a clapping emoji, he captured the shock rippling
through Europe's energy commentariat. Now the target of his applause
was not some fringe skeptic but Germany's own Economy and

(01:58):
Energy Minister Katerina Reischer. In a guest column for the
Frankfurt El jermain Zetong my interpretation, Reiser delivered a verdict
that would have been career ending heresy only a year ago. Quote.
One fact has been concealed for too long. An energy

(02:21):
transition that ignores system costs will ruin the country it
claims to save. Can I repeat that I will? One
fact has been concealed for too long. An energy transition
that ignores system costs, because last week that was under discussion,
will ruin the country it claims to save. Close quote
Now to anyone who has watched Germany's energy vendor, that

(02:45):
tootemic experiment in decarbonization by decree unfold like a slow
motion train wreck. Righteous words land like a thunderclap from
the establishment itself. So here is a senior CDU minister
in Chancellor Frederick Mercer's government openly admitting that two decades

(03:07):
of green inspired fantasy have saddled the continent's industrial powerhouse,
with hidden costs now running according to estimates she cites
at thirty six billion euro a year and climbing towards
ninety billion grid expansions, backup power for intermittent wind and solar,
and the sheer inefficiency of trying to run a modern

(03:29):
economy on the weather. All of it, she says, must
stop being airbrushed out of the official narrative. The self deception,
she warns, is over. This is not mere technocratic tinkering.
It is the first major public crack in the ideological
edifice that's dominated German and by extension, European energy policies

(03:51):
since the anti nuclear Beatnik sixty eights generation. Sees the
cultural high ground, And just to add for emphasis, Rupert
Darwel chronicled the phenomenon with great precision in Green Tyranny.
How a handful of German Greens, personified by the sneaker
wearing well Joska Fisher, swearing in as Hess's environment minister

(04:16):
in nineteen eighty five, exported their peculiar red green blend
of anti capitalist zeal and romantic romantic environmentalism across the
continent and beyond. Now that's only the beginning of a
reasonably lengthy article which is worth worth reading. And if
you want help, cracks appear in climate consensus as Germany's

(04:40):
energy minister admits renewables are ruining the country. Now, my
only remaining comment is very simple. The world is waking up.
We're still sound asleep. And as long as we have
politicians in this country that pursue net zero and the
nonsense that goes with it, the more trouble will be
in And anybody who's promoting the continuation of that will

(05:02):
not be getting a vote from this microphone. Now, in
a moment after the regular break, its sky hatching. Laton
Smith Buckolan is a natural oral vaccine in a tablet
form called bacterial nicate. It'll boost your natural protection against
bacterial infections in your chest and throat. A three day

(05:22):
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 and safe protection
from colds and chills. Protection becomes effective a few days

(05:43):
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 alternative to
influenza vaccination, but may be used along with the flu
vaccination for added protection. And keep in mind that millions
of doses have been taken by kiwis for over fifty years.

(06:07):
Only available from your pharmacist. Always read the label and
users directed and see your doctor if systemsist. Farmer Broker
Auckland Guy Hatchett is an international advocate of food safety

(06:36):
and natural medicine. He received his undergraduate degree in logic
and theoretical physics from the University of Sussex and his
PhD in psychology from the Maharishi University of Management in Iowa.
He was formerly a senior manager at genetic Id, a
global food safety testing and certification laboratory. His published work

(06:58):
uses the statistical methods of the physical sciences to analyze
social data. He has lectured and advised governments in countries
around the world on health and education initiatives, written the
book Your DNA Diet, which examines the role of genetic
information in nutrition and investigates safety issues in medical settings.

(07:19):
He is also a pioneer of research on consciousness as
a field phenomenon, and has presented papers on the benefits
of meditation to improve health outcomes and quality of life. Guy,
it's been a while since we spoke, too long, in fact,
and I have to say that I've gone through some
some of your previous papers earlier this year, and when

(07:43):
you read them one after the other, you realize that
there are some serious issues that need to be dealt with,
and I don't know how many people are actually confronting them.
So in saying it's good to have you back, what's
your response to that.

Speaker 3 (07:59):
I was talking about it this morning actually with my
wife and daughter. I think we've come from a sort
of comfortable we are a technology like, if you like,
before COVID, and now we've entered into a you know,
a full on technology era which isn't working, and I

(08:23):
think people want to get back to the to a
safer space, but I don't see that happening. I think
we have to find ways forward. We can't just turn
the clock back. We have to start looking at what's
gone wrong over the last you know, a few years,

(08:44):
maybe decade, and seriously wrong in the whole health field,
and you know in other areas as well, in terms
of global geopolitics and so on. And we have to
work out a way forward and that's going to require
new principles and deeper understanding.

Speaker 2 (09:06):
Well, in the words of the song, yesterday has come
and gone, and I think adjusting to that is not easy.

Speaker 3 (09:14):
Yeah. Absolutely, I think some people are not adjusting and
it's causing a lot of stress, and that's it's important
to work out a way through that. You can't look
the other way anymore. That's where we're at.

Speaker 2 (09:31):
Well, if you can't look the other way anymore, is
there not a danger of adopting blinkers?

Speaker 3 (09:37):
Yeah, well that's happened, hasn't it. That's what we're seeing
and answer. That's another of the problem, isn't it.

Speaker 2 (09:45):
How would you describe it? Then? How would you take
take a mental picture of what you're talking about and
add some color to it.

Speaker 3 (09:54):
People have become distracted. We're in an age where there's
so much information. We're in information from from a very
young age, and we've really lost the ability, in terms
of reading, writing, and arithmetic, to go deeply into a subject.

(10:15):
And people don't read long format, they don't understand numbers.
We've delegated a lot of what should be going on
in our brain to computers really at tablets and phones
and so on, outside of ourselves, and we've stopped thinking

(10:38):
deeply enough to manage our way through life. And it's
affected everybody. Anyone working in education will tell you that
there's a huge problem. People are graduating from elite institutions
like Yale and Harvard who actually can't read. It's extraordinary,

(11:00):
isn't it. But they're graduating people who are going to
become the leaders of countries. They're going to become politicians, doctors,
CEOs of companies, and their ability to think is severely blinked.

Speaker 2 (11:18):
It's being talked about all over the place. I don't
get through a day without reading something regarding education, and
it's lacking. I wonder though, if the move that's been
made or the moves that have been made in education
by Erica Stanford in the present government aren't in the
process of rectifying that thoughts.

Speaker 3 (11:39):
Yeah, I think it's a big change that has to
take place, and whether the government can manage that or not,
I think it has to be broader recognition. I think
the government could initiate, if it was courageous, initiate a
broader recognition of the need to ensure that the basic

(12:02):
functions of reading, writing, arithmetic are re established in education.
That's very, very important and that's deeply connected to well being.
If very young children are exposed to very high inputs
of information and rapid movement of graphic images for too

(12:27):
long in a day, their brain doesn't develop very well.
You're setting the scene for people who can't function properly.
And this is not just an idea, it's a result.
It's definitely the result of research. Research is coming out
now showing that exposure to technology, and as you grow older,

(12:51):
exposure to multimedia you know, a social media, and as
you grow older again giving up and handing your thinking
over to AI. All of these things affect brain development,
which continues right up until age twenty five and even
beyond that, and if you're interfering with the development of

(13:13):
your brain, you're interfering with the capacity to engage with
life successfully. And if that's happening on mass, which is
exactly what's happening, then we're putting the whole foundation of
our civilization at risk. And I think it's as a
result of this that we unthinkingly are accepting technological developments

(13:37):
across the board, especially my area of interests in biotechnology.
Of course, we're accepting things that we haven't thought about,
and we haven't thought through the implications. And it's a
curious thing, but people sort of put aside their every
day common sense and understanding and sensory experience and accept

(14:02):
technological innovations and explanations that don't actually fit it. You know,
if we're managing our own life, we know that we
are taking conscious decisions and deciding how our life is
going to go ahead. That's coming from within ourselves and

(14:23):
within our thinking process, our consciousness, our awareness. And yet
you have whole sections of science developing, particularly biotechnology, which
are wanting to exclude the whole notion of consciousness. That
doesn't make sense.

Speaker 2 (14:43):
There's a lot of things that make sense. Let me
just quote you from your latest publication where to from Here?
And when you mentioned, when you mentioned the universality of it,
the penny has dropped you right in Denmark, which is
rolling back digital education because the replacement of books with tablets,

(15:04):
I mean tablet computers cause the dramatic loss in the
capacity to concentrate. Too many hours spent on social media
also take a toll on mental health. Since the beginning
of the current school year in Denmark, there are no
mobile phones or tablets allowed in classrooms during the school day.

Speaker 3 (15:23):
Yeah, and I.

Speaker 2 (15:23):
Think that that should be a universal adoption, absolutely.

Speaker 3 (15:28):
If you talked I know, of course, I've worked in
schools and I can and any school teacher will tell
you that it is not working for students.

Speaker 2 (15:41):
Were then staying in this lane. Why is it then
that there are so many teachers in this country who
who fight into what they consider to be interference in
their own patch and deny many of the aspects of
change that would be positive.

Speaker 3 (16:01):
Well, you know, some people just take they just always
they swim with the current and they don't think about
what they're doing. You know, people just do as they're told.

Speaker 2 (16:11):
So you've got so you've got teachers in schools in
New Zealand raising kids for the future who are just
rolling with the flow and not doing any thinking for themselves.

Speaker 3 (16:22):
Obviously, yeah, I think you have to. You know, there's
a principle here of mastery learning and education. This is
I did my NA research on mastery learning. At each
step in education, you have to be sure that the
students have actually mastered the prior step. So you have

(16:48):
to be sure that you know they know that one
plus one is two before you go on to two
plus two as well. You each step. That's obviously trivially,
but that's how mastery learning works. You don't move ahead
until you're moving ahead sure that your students have grasped

(17:11):
the foundational concepts before you go into the higher concepts.
And computers actually allowed kids to completely bypass that. I mean,
it all started with calculators. Actually that people no longer
had to understand the basics of numbers arithmetic because they

(17:34):
could simply push some buttons and get the so called
right answer. The thing is that when you enter a
push button mode of doing mathematics, what gets imprinted in
your brain is actually the movement of your finger across buttons.

(17:56):
If you can do mental arithmetic mentally and you know
your times tables, then what gets printed in your brain
is a conceptual relationship. And then when you come into
life you can assess adequately that various and compare quantities

(18:18):
and outcomes because you have that pattern in your brain.
If you push buttons to get those kind of answers,
you can't do that. You don't develop conceptual understanding.

Speaker 2 (18:33):
Would it be fair to say that that there is
not lliant? Well, this is this is correct by some
as you've just said that there is not enough attention
paid to that the approach that you're taking. Therefore, the
argument which does a fall three sixty and or is
it a one eighty and comes back and tells you

(18:55):
that you don't need to learn it because you can
punch buttons. Is that? Is that a logic logic?

Speaker 3 (19:05):
Well, you know, I mean, it's it's easy to bast
teachers on this, but the fact of the matter is
that there's quite a lot of primary school teachers who
don't actually have who now come through this very system,
and they themselves don't have this mathematical understanding, so they
become a victim of the system which they're perpetuating, and

(19:25):
they're good people with good intentions. But when you have
a loss of numerocy or literacy in society, then you know,
one thing starts to compound another, and that's the situation
which we've reached. If you know, if you're saying to teachers,

(19:47):
you really have to stop relying on calculators or relying
on computers when it comes to all videos, when it
comes to literacy, then you're actually it's actually quite confronting
because a lot of the people have come through a
system where they haven't had that opportunity to develop those

(20:08):
skil of themselves. And that's that's a crisis. That's why,
you know, one of the reasons why I said, we're
going from near of technology light towards an era where
we're absolutely dominated by technology we don't understand and we

(20:28):
don't understand the implications of it. Well, how do you
get out of this? Well, you know, you have to
put your boots on and you have to stride in
there and really start sorting it out. And that's a
role that the government could take. Of course, you know,
you and I Layton probably have not a huge amount

(20:51):
of faith in the ability of government to do that.
But yeah, definitely we have to start put our thinking
caps on and start working out how how we go
to negotiate our way out of the situation we've got into.

Speaker 2 (21:06):
So in that in that called Where to From Here,
you cover the biotech industry, and of course that includes
gain of function. Now, somebody asked, somebody asked me only
yesterday what exactly is gain of function? And I I
grasp it without understanding it fully because I've never I've

(21:26):
never pushed it that far. I suppose I just know
what it means. But this morning I checked it, checked
it out and got the full got the full quid.
And anybody who doesn't understand it should should actually do
that because it makes things far clearer. Anyway, gain of
function is something that has been around for some considerable time.

(21:48):
When would you say it's it first made an appearance
gain of function?

Speaker 3 (21:53):
Gain of function is definitely the century. It's it's basically
when people started to have the detailed editing skills to
begin to make a virus more deadly and more dangerous.

(22:14):
And it took off really in the after, say around
twenty twelve, where the theory was that viruses are evolving
in nature, which is true, and that therefore, why don't

(22:36):
we genetically alter a virus to make it more deadly
and then we could sort of jump ahead of nature
and work out what we could do to protect ourselves
from something that's not yet happened. So that's really making
it an already difficult virus more deadly and more contagious,

(23:02):
and or experiments, as is the case with COVID in
the hand lab focused on taking a virus from an
animal that we are not susceptible to as human beings
can't be transmitted to human beings and make it transmissible
to human beings and deadly for human beings, and then

(23:25):
try and develop a vaccine. Well, that didn't work, and
everyone around the world should know that that is not
a good thing to do because you can't contain a virus.
No laboratories are safe. There are accidents are actually very

(23:46):
commonplace in biotech laboratories, and so it was a step
too far. And that is the majority opinion about the
origins of COVID now and so therefore I'm very clear

(24:07):
on this. Whether you think that you know that the
health issues that the world has experienced in the last
six years are due to COVID or COVID vaccines doesn't
really matter. They both came out of biotechnology experimentation that
was far too risky to undertake. And the extraordinary thing

(24:29):
is that that hasn't stopped as a result of our
experience with COVID, it has actually multiplied. There are more
gain of function experiments going on on deadly diseases like
small pox and ebola around the world than anthrax and

(24:50):
so than there were before the pandemic. So this is
technology that's got out of hand and a risk and
it's the sort of collective madness that has taken a
grip of people, and our politicians, frankly, are not educated
enough to understand how mad this is. There are people

(25:15):
who are you, very significant and published people in the
field of biotechnology who are raising huge questions about this
Brittard Ebite in America, Elena Chan again in America, who
are raising questions and saying why not this is still happening.

(25:36):
This is madness politicians. I mean, the view that politicians
have is the biotechnology is going to be somehow, you know,
a cash cow of economic development.

Speaker 2 (25:50):
Well, there's a connection, strong connection with New Zealand, and
this we'll get to well, let me quote you, well,
not you, but let me quote the beginning of the
of the article where too from here? Because it takes
us where I want to go? After the failure of
the Royal Commission on nineteen, we're all wondering where to

(26:11):
from here? We are not alone. The entire biotech industry
is now planning future expansion bolstered by the findings. And
then you've got in Bracket's three question marks of pandemic
inquiries in multiple countries which have failed to criticize biotech experimentation,
bucking the trend of all systems go. And you just

(26:34):
mentioned her. Elena Chan a molecular biologist and postdoctoral fellow
at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, known for
her research into the origins of sars kov two. She
is raising critical questions about control of gain and function research.
She points out that the US still has no national

(26:55):
policy to control gain of function research, which involves the
creation of new pathogens that can escape and kill millions
of people. This is not just happening in the US.
Multiple countries are continuing to conduct gain of function experiments
which create deadly novel viruses. Now I think I should
go on just a bit further. There are military objectives

(27:18):
in play in the USA and in countries like Russia, Ukraine,
uk around China and many others on all continents. These
are euphemistically described as offensive, defensive, dual purpose initiatives, supposedly
designed to understand how pathogens evolve and how they might
be stopped in the event of a bio war. Talking

(27:41):
writing personally, you say, forgive me for pointing out the obvious,
but the COVID pandemic should have taughtois that secure containment
of pathogens is a myth? There, I'll stop leave it
to you.

Speaker 3 (27:57):
Yeah, well, it's as I've said, this is a kind
of madness. And why is this still happening? Why haven't
governments taken in hand to stop this kind of research?
And that I think we've come right back to where

(28:19):
we began is a failure of education. People really don't
understand biotechnology, and they have this sort of unthinking acceptance
of it that it's okay, it's all going to work out.
I think the most common attitude I come across is, yeah, sure,
there are a few things that went wrong, but they'll
get it right. And they're not getting it right. It's all.

(28:47):
You know, there are a lot of promises being made
and a lot of exotic, risky, dangerous research taking place
under this umbrella of the promise of something good coming
out of it. Well, we yet to see something good
coming out of this kind of research. We've seen quite

(29:09):
the reverse.

Speaker 2 (29:12):
Eleena Chen reports that in the USA, for example, anyone
can still easily source a sample of a deadly virus
and start research in a low safety lab without violating
any US law. Have they got nuts?

Speaker 3 (29:27):
Yeah, well they just I mean, it's a US policy,
it's a guiding policy coming from the US government to
do everything to facilitate and encourage diversity of biotech research.
And it's something that the biotech industry has lobbied for

(29:47):
strongly and strenuously for years. Please don't control anything that
we do. Leave us to go ahead and do whatever
we want to do. And that gave us COVID. There's
absolutely no doubt about that. And I you know, we're

(30:08):
opposing here in New Zealand to go along with US
and liberalize and any sort of control on biotech experimentation.
And this just doesn't involve gain function research and involves
our food sources. For goodness sake, there are there's a

(30:31):
lot of new ingredients going into our food. I cited
one a few articles back. You know, chocolate, You know
there's chocolate is a big industry. Everybody likes chocolate, and
chocolate is getting more and more costly, and more and
more people around the world want chocolate, and so the

(30:53):
biotech industry is busy producing synthetic versions of chocolate. And
there's an article in the Guardian which headlined it said
I tried, I tried and new chocolate. Barn spat it
out because yeah, that's one thing. It doesn't taste that good,

(31:16):
really doesn't taste that chocolate. But the other thing is
what does it do to you? What is it? You know,
our whole synthetic food, a whole ultra processed food industry
that extends right across to our bread and butter and
our fruit and vegetables, and you know are ready foods

(31:40):
are using biotechnology to mass produce food that actually is
not healthy for us. It has you see these little
sequences of genetic information that are being invented in laboratories.
They are they have the capacity to do things. That's

(32:03):
the whole thing about sequences of genetic information. They they
initiate events in living systems. So if you start to
put novel sequences in food, in medicine, what do they
do to you. They initiate new events, They initiate novel events,

(32:28):
they can take control of certain aspects. And our physiology
is an integrated whole. It's a very holistic system, enormously complex.
There thirty seven trillion cells all coordinated, working together, hugely

(32:51):
complex system. If you start to throw in a few
chemicals that a few genetic sequences which say, oh wait
a minute, do it this way, that's essentially what's happening.
Oh do it this way. But it's all in bent it.
It's all a kind of a random experiment on the

(33:14):
human race that's going on in through our food system
and our medicine, and let's see what happens. In fact,
I was reading an interview with a biotechnologist a few
weeks ago in which he openly said, yes, we're doing
this on a look and see basis. The legacy for
that is the levels of ill health that we're starting

(33:36):
to experience, which we've never experienced before.

Speaker 2 (33:39):
All right, so what's your knowledge of the current state
of the hospital system in New Zealand.

Speaker 3 (33:47):
The rate of excess death. That means, how are death's
running compared to what they were before the pandemic. They're
about three percent higher. Three percent higher. That's over a
thousand people more people dying per year in New Zealand
that would you would have expected to die if we

(34:07):
had continued with the level of health we had before
the pandemic. So that's still happening. And then you see
in the whole system that our rates of cancer, our
rates of hospitalization, our rates of call out for ambulances,

(34:31):
they're running hugely above the pre pandemic levels.

Speaker 2 (34:37):
I heard conversation on radio during the week with regard
to the situation in hospitals now. Three years ago, I
spent a bit of time in our hospitals, you know,
with a heart attack, which wasn't I always said it
was never a serious one. But that's probably me looking

(34:58):
on the on trying to look on the bright side.
There was a shortage of beds then. But now my
understanding is that it's just crazy. I really, I mean
really really crazy.

Speaker 3 (35:09):
Yeah, if you've been into a and E you'll be aware.
As you know. I'm going to say, snap when it
was your health experience, because I had one too, and
it's you know, there are times there when you're there
are no beds and people are in the corridor, and

(35:33):
I saw it in A and E people getting sent
home more obviously shouldn't have been sent home. Our resources
are understrained. It's important to understand this is not because
of medical personnel being too few. We have quite a
good level of medical coverage here in this country compared

(35:56):
to OECD countries. It's because there has been an increase
in illness. And that is I think it's a huge
failure of Health New Zealand that they haven't I that
it hasn't become a generalized public knowledge. They haven't really
come to grips with the fact that what they're dealing

(36:17):
with is not and inefficiencies in the system. What they're
dealing with is increased levels of illness.

Speaker 2 (36:26):
Well, if we make a comparison with weather, we just
had a cyclone or an attempted one and everybody buckled down,
et cetera. But did what cyclones do and went disappeared
the weather changes. Could you not argue that the situation

(36:46):
in the medical sphere, in hospitals et cetera. Is not
the result of COVID initially and it too will pass.
Would that be an award winning argument? And the debate, I.

Speaker 3 (37:00):
Think you've got to just look at the statistics and
you know, if someone's saying this is going to pass, well,
prove it. Is it passing? The answer is no? And
are the government? What the government had done is taken
the attitude that this is a failure of the health system.

(37:20):
They're just haven't confronted the fact that as a population,
since twenty twenty, we're facing higher levels of ill health.
And then you have to go into the reasons for that,
and that's where you come across biotechnology. That's where you

(37:41):
come across ultra process foods, and those are the things
that have to we're talking here. I think these are
important things to consider. Is that when we entered the
era of biotech medicine, we entered an era where the
rate of adverse effects from medication increased dramatically. You know,

(38:05):
there were for example, take toment here. Just a recent
example is that a couple of years ago, medicines for
dementia were approved. La Canobab was one of them that
supposedly reduced the amyloid plaques in the brain, which were

(38:27):
believed to be the cause of dementia. Last week the
Cochrane Into Institute in the UK analyzed the outcomes. So
that's what they're looking at, is the outcomes, and they
found that actually these drugs exacerbate dementia, they don't cure it.

(38:48):
So the theory was wrong. So in the end you
have to measure outcomes. In fact, twenty percent of people
taking these analots, so called amyloid plaque reducing medications, developed
brain swelling and became worse as a result of taking
medication which was approved. And this was a medication that

(39:13):
went deep into the genetics function in the brain, and
it introduced new risks, and it revealed our lack of
understanding really of this whole area that they're pushing into
areas of genetic function that are not properly understood. And

(39:38):
this is happening across the board. It's now acceptable to
have levels of adverse effect. This especially come on since
the pandemic. It's acceptable to have very very high levels
of adverse effects and say, oh, well, this is progress, right,
It's not progress. Common sense should tell us that this
is not progress. If you're looking at medicines are being

(40:01):
approved that have very very small effect sizes. They have
very very little effect and very high levels of adverse effects.
So they have very little positive effect but high levels
of adverse effects. Whereas if you look at things like
pure diet, pure water, fresh air, exercise, they have very

(40:25):
large effects sises and have huge benefits on health and
almost no adverse effects. And you ask a doctor how
much training they have in nutrition or exercise, and they'll
tell you almost none.

Speaker 2 (40:45):
And I've been I've been told that by qualified doctors. Look,
I've got a question for you, because this only happened yesterday,
talking talking with someone whose friend had just had an
operation on the brain, and it came about out by

(41:11):
her husband and her girlfriend noticing changes in her speech
and thinking, and and the woman concerned said, no, no, no, no,
there's nothing wrong. I've just got something rather than whatever. Anyway,
they convinced it to go see the appropriate specialist. It was,

(41:32):
I'm on the back of a Bible, sworn on the
cover of a Bible, sworn to me that that size
of that gross in her brain, you'll never guess. Tell
me tennis ball. Yeah, And I said, impossible. How can

(41:53):
you have a tennis ball inside your head without it
exploding or whatever. I just I was dumbfounded.

Speaker 3 (42:01):
You say, yeah, I'm not a medical doctor. I'm my
pierced is and so ecology and my expertise.

Speaker 2 (42:09):
Well that's that's the right, and I am.

Speaker 3 (42:17):
You and I are both benefited from surgery recently. Yes,
and so I'm not knocking a medical system from every angle,
because there's a great deal of expertise and knowledge there.
What I'm talking about is new risks through new medical

(42:42):
technology that's not safe, and new risks through changes in
our traditional foods, in the processed food industry. And whither
any individual case is connected to those changes is a
matter of doing research. And to do that kind of research,

(43:09):
source medical data has to be opened up to independent research.
The reverse happened in our country after COVID. There was
Barry Young who released what I thought was very important
data on mortality following COVID vaccination. He was prosecuted and

(43:31):
the publishing of key medical statistics was criminalized in this country,
which was a government running scared because they had taken
some very unfortunate decisions. I wouldn't if we're ever going
to sort out why there is more ill health. We're

(43:52):
going to have to have more access to source data
to sort out exactly what is happening. Are people experiencing
more neurological problems, more cancers, more heart disease, more mental
ill health, and in exactly what categories and what are

(44:16):
these people doing that is making them more liable to
these kind of conditions, what ages, what diets, these kinds
of things. So this kind of research is key. But
in the meantime, whether we have that research done or not,
we do know that the largest effects sizes that are

(44:37):
going to improve health are connected to better diet, better
quality of life, better food, better air, more exercise.

Speaker 2 (44:49):
Just to clear the slate, I wasn't suggesting that there
was anything about that brain tumor that was the responsibility
of medicine or whatever or the system. It was just
the size of it. I just couldn't believe that. And
by the way, it was non malignant. It's being removed,

(45:11):
but I don't know how how it can be in
existence without it being hugely obvious. Now I'll leave it
there because it's it's.

Speaker 3 (45:21):
Well, it's the human bodies. Miraculous, isn't it In the
sense that it's so much of it is carried out automatically,
and the body has its own mechanisms for isolating things
that it doesn't that it doesn't like. So I mean
that our immune system recognizes things that it doesn't like

(45:44):
and it can it can just isolate them from the
whole system. But you know, of course there are elastic
limits that were clearly this lady or referring to had
reached where it was starting to impinge on other systems,
and surgery saved the day. And I think you know,
surgery has an awful lot, As everybody knows, surgery has

(46:05):
an enormous amount to offer us as one.

Speaker 2 (46:08):
All right, So, just picking up on your commentary on
the doctors who was or the man who released the
information and got charged, etc. In the piece The Truth
and Tragedy of COVID in New Zealand, you suggest that
in your recent article the Royal Commission report is a

(46:28):
scientific and ethical failure, and then you go into detail
a feature that's been conspicuously absent in advice offered to
the public by the government Health New Zealand and the media.
The Commission scandalously also omitted any reference to research It
failed to recognize that the questions raised by the COVID

(46:49):
pandemic demand scientific answers. Nothing else will suffice. And then
you go on to say that New Zealand is in
a unique position to provide unambiguous answers. Can you detail
that for us?

Speaker 3 (47:03):
Absolutely? We are the only country in the world, virtually
the country I think I haven't heard of any others
where we introduce the COVID vaccine in twenty twenty one
before there had been any broad scale infection with COVID.

(47:23):
COVID were very limited because we closed our borders, we
had track and tracing, we had social distancing, and basically
we kept COVID out until late in twenty twenty one.
But meanwhile, from March from the end of February, virtually

(47:43):
eighty percent of the population was vaccinated. So the problem
with a lot of published research, and there have been
three quarters of a million papers published on COVID worldwide,
learned papers, scholarly articles and so on and research. The

(48:04):
problem with a lot of this research is that the
people who were being studied had not just had COVID,
but they'd also been vaccinated, and it's very hard to
sort out what was due to the vaccination and what
was due to COVID. But here in New Zealand we
had the vaccination before we had the COVID and that's unique.

(48:27):
And therefore analysis of data what happened in twenty twenty one,
which was what data that Barry Young released, in data
that we also looked at at the Hatch had report
and published the paper on shows quite unequivocally that there
was a rise in mortality associated with in tandem with

(48:52):
the increased numbers of vaccination, and that is absolutely it
contains an absolute lesson for the world because you were
actually able to show this particular effect was due to
the COVID vaccine. And there are other studies that support

(49:13):
that in other countries, but they're not as clear cut
because COVID was rampant and covid infection that is and
the vaccine was there simultaneously. So that's the fact that
that whole side of investigation has been closed down by

(49:35):
Health New Zealand and the government has made it a
criminal offense to share information or data from that period
is extraordinary. It's like and the fact that the Commission
didn't comment on that even though they were alerted to it.
You're basically throwing away the capacity to understand what really

(49:56):
went on.

Speaker 2 (49:59):
Why do you think in the government took that path.

Speaker 3 (50:03):
Because they're ignorant. I'm sorry, I can't see any I mean, yeah,
they just wanted to put it behind it again. It's
where we started off in this interview. I think there's
a lot of people who just, you know, they just
want to look the other way. They just want things
to go back to the way they were before. They

(50:24):
don't want the endless discussion about what happened in the pandemic.
I'm fed up with that. I don't want to hear
about it again. We're just going ahead, We're getting back
on track. It's all that kind of thinking. But the
genie's out of the bottle and you can't turn the
clock back. Now. You have to look back and find
out what went wrong and correct it as best you can,

(50:45):
and and make sure you don't make that mistake again.
And that was what the commission was should have been about.
But the fact that they didn't address scientific research and
publish scientific research which clearly shows that there is a problem,
this really left them. As you know, it was a
non event that commission because it wouldn't look at what

(51:09):
would give them answers.

Speaker 2 (51:11):
And they had the ability to do then.

Speaker 3 (51:15):
Oh yeah, I think they had very broad powers to
do that, but obviously they decided to duck on it.
And that's, you know, kind of on the one hand,
it's inexplicable to me as a scientist, but as a
a rather jaded observer of government and government processes, probably

(51:38):
quite explicable. We can, we actually have the capacity and
we still have that capacity here in New Zealand to
resolve a lot of the controversy surrounding COVID nineteen because
we have this unique period of a year where we
had the vaccine but not the not covid infection. And

(52:00):
I'm not downgrading covid infection here, I'm just simply saying
that we had this unique period where we could separate
out the The effect of these two which obviously exacerbate
each other, covid vaccination and covid infection. The covid vaccination

(52:22):
is it actually increases the supply of the of critical
toxic factors of covid infection in the body, the spike protein.
So they both have they both expose the body to
a cardiotoxic spipe protein. They both do it, they, the

(52:46):
Commission said, and they took evidence from Hipkins and ar
Dern and.

Speaker 2 (52:51):
Others secret, with Hipkins secret.

Speaker 3 (52:55):
Yeah, yeah, it was disgraceful. They took evidence in secret,
and they accepted at face value that they had had
advice from so called experts telling them this was the
best thing that they ought to do, whereas the Commission
failed to realize that the experts were working within an

(53:19):
established paradigm of vaccination and a lot of the experts
knew very very little about biotechnology. This was a completely
novel system of vaccination. In fact, it didn't really deserve
that the epithet the name vaccination. Yeah, it didn't. Everyone knows,

(53:44):
and you see this is again we have to come
back to common set to you. Everyone knows that it
did not prevent infection. It didn't stop transmission, which is
the things that the thing that vaccines were supposed to do.
So it clearly was novel. It didn't work the way

(54:05):
that traditional vaccines work, and we have to accept that.

Speaker 2 (54:11):
I still have pictures in my head of television news
and the camping on Parliament's grounds by what three hundred
people or something whatever, a number of people where the
Prime Minister shut them down, poured water on them, wouldn't

(54:33):
go and talk with them, which is what they really wanted,
and in the end, with the results that we suspected
were right then and have been proven to be right now,
she did a disgraceful thing. And there are a lot
of people I think who, if they haven't been should
be recompensed compensated for what happened to some of them.

Speaker 3 (54:58):
There are a lot. It's a tragedy. And that's why
the article that we're discussing now that we've written is
called the Truth and the Tragedy of COVID in New Zealand,
because the tragedy is that there are a lot of
people who have been affected, and not just by COVID vaccination,
but by COVID infection as well and left with long

(55:20):
term health conditions, all of which came out of risky
biotechnology experimentation which would never have happened. It should have
been shut down. In fact, it was shut down somewhere
around two thousand and twelve in America. Gain of function

(55:45):
experimentation was actually stopped by.

Speaker 2 (55:48):
The head on from you, we lost you. Then it
was stopped by.

Speaker 3 (55:56):
It stopped by the US government. They actually banned gain
of function experimentation somewhere around twenty twelve. The exact date
escapes me, but for two or three years it was
completely banned because it was realized it was very dangerous.
But then pressure from within the biotech industry to you know,

(56:20):
deliberately to liberalize and deregulate meant that it was allowed again,
and it's allowed to this day. And politicians don't really
have the depth of understanding to come to grips with
the risks that this kind of experimentation poses. And that

(56:44):
should have been a conclusion of the Royal Commission that
there were risks taken that should never be taken again.
We should not allow biotechnology experimentation, mass biotechnology experimentation on
populations and gain a function rese search which makes illnesses

(57:11):
more contagious and more deadly.

Speaker 2 (57:14):
All right, So I might be a little out of
out of touch with the latest So where is where
is that politically for the labeling on food products?

Speaker 3 (57:28):
Basically a long time ago, a few years ago, we
handed our regulation of the food industry really over to
the to Australia, and the Australian New Zealand food regulatory
system is basically going full bore to ensure that to

(57:53):
prevent the labeling of genetically modified food and genetically modified
microprocessing aids in the food system. So at the moment
our supermarkets are being flooded with genetically modified items in food.
I think this is yeah, because it's not just the crops,

(58:18):
but a lot more goes into foods, yeasts, processing, age, preservatives, colorings,
and the genetic modification of these ingredients and residues from
the processes and themselves is not being identified on any labels.

(58:41):
And I come back to saying that sequences of genetic
information do things. They command processes in the physiology. Up
until the advent of biotechnology, we had and a food

(59:03):
system that was basically entirely natural that had grown up
through the evolutionary past, where everything fitted together. The body
was used to what was out there in the environment
and what it did, and had learned how to deal

(59:24):
with it to maintain health. The introduction, the rapid introduction
of part entirely novel that means man made, made up
genetic sequences into our food system poses extreme challenges to
our immune system and to our health.

Speaker 2 (59:47):
And the political stance on it.

Speaker 3 (59:49):
I think New Zealand FIRSUS historically and now recognizes that
we have a right to know what goes in our food,
and I don't think any other party does. In fact,
act is probably taken the most extreme position.

Speaker 2 (01:00:08):
This strange. I find that very strange.

Speaker 3 (01:00:12):
Well, it's strange given that political philosophy, isn't it.

Speaker 2 (01:00:15):
Yeah, For anyone who thinks that that's just a waste
of time and it's going to be just accepted and
take it. My advice is to think much more clearly
and work through as as you were, as guy was
saying earlier this morning on this and think it through

(01:00:37):
and read up a bit, and you might very well
find yourself in a position where you get a bit heated.

Speaker 3 (01:00:46):
Absolutely. I mean if you're if you like chocolate and
you're buying chocolate bars and then you suddenly find a
few things on the ingredient less that you know that
sort of sound like chocolate. Maybe they're called chocolate flavor,
or instead of vanilla they're called nil in. Yeah, you

(01:01:10):
start to think, well, what is this? But that's the
things that are being identified or labeled. There's lots of
things in food that are not being identified. Yeah, And
there are a lot of things that are you know
if you look at something like yeast, we're on yeast
is in bread right, helps bread to rise. We're now

(01:01:32):
on modified yeast version two, genetically modified yeast version two,
and currently under development is genetically modified version three yeast.
And the health effects of these who knows, because it's

(01:01:55):
just been given the green light. So the regulatory systems
just green light these, and the strategy of processed food
industry is just give them the same names that everybody
is used to and don't tell anyone.

Speaker 2 (01:02:11):
Now, you tell me this. If we kept on talking
until we'd got through everything that interested us in conversation,
how long do you think this podcast would be?

Speaker 3 (01:02:25):
Well, I've written five hundred articles on which we published
on the hat Tad Report. We also published on Substep,
and all of our articles contained scientific references to published
research in learning journals raising issues about biotechnology and connection

(01:02:46):
with health principally. And we could talk for a very
long time, and five hundred articles would make for a
very large book, which I doubt that people would be
able to get through. Yes, we try and condense information
into bites. There's still are the cars that run through

(01:03:09):
four or five pages. But we try our aim is
to condense scientific information which is largely accessible to the
inaccessible to the man in the street, into language that
can be understood and concepts that can be referenced back
to source research, and to.

Speaker 2 (01:03:29):
Do a very good job, in my humble opinion, So
at that point we'll conclude. But there is something else,
because I'll put it this way. A guy sent me
a photograph not long before we started recording, and it
was a picture taken from his house. Give us a brief,

(01:03:52):
a brief brief on the story.

Speaker 3 (01:03:56):
Well, I think it's something that affects New Zealanders and
it's important. In the January storm events, we woke up
and I walked out light in very very heavy rain.
We're in about forty minutes north of tung Array, in
a coastal region that was very badly affected. And I

(01:04:16):
walked out at first light and my whole our whole
property was whitewater. It was water everywhere. We're on the hillside.
And then we walked down to our front drive and
our front drive didn't exist anymore, and a hillside on

(01:04:39):
our property had come down, swamped our drive and swamped
the road and closed Russell Road, and we sort of
got it got cleared that you know, people arrived as
they do. The council did a good job and we
were able to get out, and we had another way
to get out, and we went to the other end
of our property, which is we don't access through there,

(01:05:02):
but it's the other end of our property on the
way to the beach, and absolutely giant slip had come
down and closed Russell Road and Russell Road is still
closed and fixing that slip is going to cost about
sixty million pounds. As I say, Gods, going back to

(01:05:23):
my extreme youth before I came here, and we've been
left with as many people have in the area of
dealing with the Natural Disaster Commission, which has replaced the
Earthquake Commission, and that the purpose of that legislation is

(01:05:44):
to ensure that after a natural disaster event, people can endure,
people's land and buildings can be restored to their usability
before the event. That legislation is having looked at it carefully,

(01:06:05):
because we've been left with this huge mess on our
access way to our property, which is our sole access way,
that is unstable. The legislation and the way it's been
interpreted has really meant that remediation is excluded because of

(01:06:33):
a lot of technical issues which don't match with the
purpose of the legislation. And what has happened here is
that the actual carrying out of that of that legislation
is left to insurance companies and various other agencies, and

(01:06:55):
they've taken a very very narrow view of interpreting the legislation,
which has excluded a lot of people from relief. And
there's a lot of people in our neighborhood who had
claims denied, who were in positions where they really can't
live as they did before, and that needs to be revisited.

(01:07:21):
And that's the process I'm having to deal with almost
on a daily boat on a daily basis. It's and
a neighbor of mine, Johnny Sadler, was describing it to me,
and he put it very seccinctly. Actually, it's as if
some you know, you thought you were insured and then

(01:07:42):
you go to you know, ask someone, can you help
sort this out. It's as if you've had the car
accident and your whole car is written off and your
insurance company comes back to you and says, we really
thought about this, and we were applied all the rules
and we've decided that you were entitled to a steering wheel,

(01:08:05):
and you say, what about the wheels and the engine?
And they say, well, you know it's Clause number thirty
six means what, we really can't live you an engine,
and clause number forty eight means that we can't give
you any wheel. So you're going to have to be
content with a steering wheel. And that's it. And that's

(01:08:25):
really the situation that we find ourselves, and it's not
a personal thing. A lot of other people, especially in
the rural areas about the same thing is that I know,
basically I'm left in a position where I have to
move about one three hundred cubic meters of loose material

(01:08:48):
and just remove it.

Speaker 2 (01:08:51):
And some of those bolders a messive you said, yeah,
there has been.

Speaker 3 (01:08:55):
Some of the boarders are as big as as containerus.
It's absolutely massive slip on one end properly, but on
our particular end. They on one end of our proper
which doesn't affect our access, something like one hundred thousand
cubic meters has to be moved, but on our driveway

(01:09:17):
about thirteen hundred cubic meters has to be moved. And
the insurance company has come back to us and said,
we've considered our level of liability and we are liable
for forty cubic meters. So that's forty cubic meters. That's
about five druck lets out of thirteen hundred cubic meters

(01:09:37):
that has to be moved. And that that's why Johnny's
analogy is true. And also it's taken month is three
months since this happened, and still you haven't heard back,
as you know, any kind of final answer. You've just
heard these kind of indications. So what I would like

(01:09:58):
to say is I've looked into into the provisions of
the Act and I think that they've been written ambiguously
and they have been narrowly interpreted by the insurance companies,
and they've taken the attitude that rather than helping people,
they're going to restrict which is actually a bit of

(01:10:20):
a trend in among insurance coin.

Speaker 2 (01:10:24):
Which government was in an office when they changed that.

Speaker 3 (01:10:30):
It came into effect in twenty twenty three, and I
suppose it was probably in the making going right back
to the christ Church earthquake. I mean, we actually had
our whole house affected very badly to earthquake we affected.
We moved up here thinking we were escaping that. But

(01:10:50):
it must be our fault because it's followed us. So
it must have been a process of being went on
a long time. But looking at the English, some of
it is not easy to follow. But it's very easy
to misinterpret. And that needs to be fixed because because

(01:11:12):
if you think you're insured because the government is there
to back you up, then that doesn't seem to be
the case to the extent that we thought it was.
And I think some people may need help. I've got
a neighbor here who's you know who overnight, just literally

(01:11:33):
a neighbor of us overnight, as a result of these
slips and the giant amount of rain that came down
within a very short period of time, his windows and
doors stopped opening, and the crack opened up under his building. Well,
when the insurance assessor came, he decided that, well, we're

(01:11:56):
not going to cover this because I'm sure this was
the result of a gradual process that happened over time.
It couldn't have happened instantly, and they just walked away
from it. And then how does he he like us
as someone who's retired, how's he going to fight that

(01:12:16):
he has to then go back and he has to
hire experts and kind of fighting. Whereas it's very obvious
because you know, I will I walked up the road
outside his house, and the day before there were no

(01:12:36):
cracks in that road. The next day there were cracks
in the road and there was a crack under his house.
So you know, I mean, it's obvious to me. It's
obvious to him because he couldn't open his doors when
he got up in the morning what happened. But it's
sort of you know that you have to have a

(01:12:57):
certain level of sympathy with people where they're affected by
a disaster, and that's true all over the country, and
that that's a bit important cultural unity that has to
be there.

Speaker 2 (01:13:08):
Look, it was the it was the country wide aspect
of this that when a guy told me, I said,
I think, I think we'll talk about it, and he said, no, no,
it's personal, it's and no, this is something that will
affect it'll be going on all over the place and
people don't know it. They don't know that they've got company,
they don't know. I mean, there should be something from

(01:13:31):
somewhere and somehow that addresses this that takes it out
of the hands of the victims.

Speaker 3 (01:13:38):
Anyway, there should be a review of that legislation and
the way it's working.

Speaker 2 (01:13:45):
So at that point, I'll say thank you for your
time again, Thank.

Speaker 3 (01:13:49):
You, lady. It's always a pleasure to talk to you.
It gives you, you know, it doesn't It gives you
a sense of sanity, and I really appreciate that, the
capacity to hear have a deep discussion, and that's something
that is, you know, we need more of.

Speaker 2 (01:14:09):
Well, I certainly agree with that. I don't know what
else to say. All Right, you take care and.

Speaker 4 (01:14:17):
You too, We'll talk by bye.

Speaker 2 (01:14:33):
I went to the mail room for three twenty five
missus producer later.

Speaker 5 (01:14:37):
Beautiful morning, beautiful morning, Every morning's beautiful.

Speaker 2 (01:14:40):
Well, i've heard you say unkind things about the weather
sometimes in the morning. Anyway, you want me to kick
it off, why don't you?

Speaker 6 (01:14:48):
Okay, Jin says, well, I agree with Lars Schernakau that
energy is the economy. An election campaign slogan that says
it's the energy stupid doesn't quite work as well as
it's the economy stupid. But what's even more stupid are
the political polls that are being run left, right and
center by both mainstream media who are stupid about both

(01:15:10):
energy and the economy. So I chuckled when rn Z
proudly boasted that RNZ remains New Zealand's most trusted news brand.
Survey reveals a man Gen goes on to have a
good look at that, but at the end of the
PC says, we have a country to save from the
damned labor Greens, the Maori Party and the BSA.

Speaker 2 (01:15:32):
And the r n Z. And then he says, by
the way, at the end, now that I got my hands.

Speaker 5 (01:15:37):
On, oh there's an over the page, I didn't even
see that.

Speaker 2 (01:15:40):
By the way, I absolutely cherished Carolyn's voice recording of
both your running commentaries on the nz MN award night
and that wasn't night was some it was runch morning.
But never mind. It gave me good vibes on a Wednesday.
I know that yours. I know that you're super humble
about this latent, so let us listeners be proud of you. Congrats.

Speaker 6 (01:16:03):
Well, we had to cut the front off because I
literally heard it and thought I was talking to a
four year old, so it was very embarrassed. It's not
my forte interviewing, that's for sure.

Speaker 2 (01:16:16):
He's need a bit of practice now. Late in your
podcast with doctor Lars Schernikah was outstanding. Thanks next time
you interview him. I wonder if you could please ask
him whether a combination of solar and our dams would
help us reduce the cost of energy. Maybe build another
dam and the government provide solar loans for rooftop homes

(01:16:39):
and industries at cost for the five to seven years
it takes for solar to pay for itself. Unfortunately, we
are too woken green to support clean coal emissions. Kind
regards Mark Mark. I will raise that with him when
the time comes.

Speaker 6 (01:16:55):
Thank you, Rodney says, I just wanted to say thank
you for the recent discussion with Lars. Really enjoyed it.
I've been involved in both energy and waste space here
in New Zealand and Japan, so freshing to hear a
conversation that focused on system level thinking rather than just
individual technologies. No expectations on a reply, says Rodney, I

(01:17:18):
just wanted to say I appreciated the discussion.

Speaker 5 (01:17:21):
Love your work, rod.

Speaker 2 (01:17:23):
Rod very good and thank you. It was a very
enjoyable and the more time that went by over the
last week, the more I realized how enjoyable that conversation was,
and the next one I think I anticipate will be
even better. Thank you now, Gail, short and sweet latent

(01:17:45):
in regard AI, should one. You're going to listen to
this carefully because should one be a conspiracy theorist, one
might consider AI is intended to brainwash the entire world
population into a one world of view. Cheers, Gail. I
think that's both cute and worthy.

Speaker 6 (01:18:10):
Leyton Roy says, I'm hearing it impaired, but would love
to be able to read a transcript of these interviews
as I used to love Layton's interviews before. Like a
growing number of oldies, our hearing ain't what it used
to be. Any chance you could pass Layton's audio interview
through a tech step and maybe summer it and tidy

(01:18:31):
it up with a good AI.

Speaker 2 (01:18:32):
Tool from Roy Roy, there is a way of doing it,
and it might be wise for me to send you
what I'm about to say rather than just read it
or just related. But you go to the pod app,
Apple or what's the other?

Speaker 6 (01:18:51):
iHeart, but I think you just scroll down and the
transcript's there.

Speaker 2 (01:18:55):
No, you've got to scroll down and choose the transcript you.

Speaker 5 (01:18:58):
Want, so follow the bouncing ball.

Speaker 2 (01:19:00):
Basically, give that a go. If it doesn't work, let
me know and I'll do it with more detail if
you like. But go to the pod app, scroll down
and find the episodes you want and then print transcript,
push or something. I've not done it, you see, I
just know that.

Speaker 6 (01:19:21):
Okay, so that you can cut this out. But I
have seen many times on iHeartRadio you just you just
scroll down and there it is.

Speaker 2 (01:19:29):
All right, well, Karen says, scroll down and there it is,
so good luck, but advise me accordingly. Please. Now, finally,
I think want to see how far the left can go.
We'll move over. Lgbt Q plus. Canadian politician Leah Gazam
introduced a new acronym in a recent parliamentary debate. You ready,

(01:19:55):
m M I W G two S l g bt
qq I A plus. Now play that back again and
memorize it, which stands for missing and Murdered Indigenous women
girls two, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual
and plus. As Matt Walsh cleverly put it, the left

(01:20:19):
turned murder into a sexual orientation. I'm no longer sure
which country is more woke stricken, Canada or the UK.
In the UK, we have a useless King, Charles the Third,
who for the first time in history, did not give
an Easter message to the people. That's pretty appalling. The
King of the UK is supposed to be the defender

(01:20:41):
of the faith. Bishop Syrion Duer wrote a beautifully powerful
open letter to King Charles where he politely reminded the
King of his duty in which his own mother, Queen Elizabeth,
carried out so graciously. In the Bishop's words, your Majesty's
subjects are not asking for religious coercion. They're asking for leadership.

(01:21:03):
They're asking that the sovereign who bears the title defender
of the faith, remember what that title means, Your Majesty.
To too many, the crown is a symbol of authority,
but before God, it is also a symbol of stewardship,
and stewardship carries with it the duty to defend what
has been entrusted. Close quote. Canada and the UK appear

(01:21:26):
to be in a race to rock bottom. They do,
don't they and they're both moving rapidly. If Canadian and
British subjects don't wake up quickly, their countries will be
lost to an ideology that is hell bent on taking
them all to hell. Pierre Polavert and Nigel Farage are
both waiting for you all to wake the heck up.

(01:21:48):
I think that that's very accurate, very truthful, and is
worthy of almost worthy of framing. Seriously. I think that'll do.

Speaker 5 (01:21:57):
That'll do late.

Speaker 2 (01:21:59):
I've got a load of stuff, just to let you
know that. The people have sent me of their own
writing and main and I'm talking about pages and pages
of one, two, three, four, closely written type that of

(01:22:20):
course I can't use in the mailroom because it's way
too long. And I will judge.

Speaker 5 (01:22:25):
Them that we love hearing from, and I will.

Speaker 2 (01:22:28):
Judge them accordingly when I when I get through them all,
and maybe repeat some All right, okay, think you can
go to the where you're going. Ye, thank you, thank you.
I'll stay here and edit you out. Now. What's about

(01:22:54):
to follow is a very interesting story and its condemnation
of the media, one particular part of the media in
this case, and it involves a couple of people whom
who are of interest to me. One is Cash Patel,
who is the one of them is Cash Patel. When

(01:23:15):
I first came across his name a couple of years ago,
whenever it was I couldn't work out this cash business.
Who's this cash person? Cash Kash Pat e l He
is the FBI director. The other is Matt Margolis. Matt
Macgolis is a reporter. He was on this podcast on
April second of last year, twenty five in podcast number

(01:23:37):
two hundred and seventy eight. I like him, He's very good.
Now he has reported on something, and I'm going to
relay it to you as it's printed, because that's the
mess and simplest and really the only way to do
it properly. Cash Patel yesterday, being Monday, in America, filed

(01:23:57):
a defamation lawsuit against a US magazine, a magazine that
reported he frequently drinks to excess and is in danger
of losing his job. Now Patel is seeking two hundred
fifty ffty million dollars in damages from the Atlantic and
the author of the article, Sarah Fitzpatrick, for what the suit.
The lawsuit described as a sweeping, malicious and defametory hit piece.

(01:24:22):
A defendants are, of course, a free to criticize the
leadership of the FBI The complaint, filed in a federal
district court in Washington, says, but they crossed the legal
line by publishing an article and let me move. To
Matt Margolis via PJ Media. The Atlantic has a well
documented history of publishing fake hit pieces about President Donald

(01:24:43):
Trump and his administration, and one wonders how many more
hoaxes they can run before they get into real trouble.
Its latest effort, targeting FBI Director Cash Bettel may be
its most reckless yet, and this time the Bureau is
fighting back with lawyers. The piece, written by reporters Sarah
Fitzpatrick and Jonathan Lemier, claims that on Friday, April ten,

(01:25:08):
Hotel struggled to log into an internal FBI computer system
while wrapping up his workday. He quickly became convinced that
he had been locked out, and he panicked, frantically calling
aids and allies to announce that he had been fired
by the White House. According to nine people familiar with
his outreach, two of these people described his behavior as

(01:25:29):
a freak out. Patel oversees an agency that employs roughly
thirty eight thousand people, including many who were trained to
investigate and verify information that can be presented under oath
in a court of law. News of his emotional outburst
ricocheted through the Bureau, prompting chatter among officials and in

(01:25:51):
some quarters of the building expressions of relief. The White
House fielded calls from the Bureau and from members of
Congress asking who was now in charge of the FBI.
It turned out that the answer was still Petel. He
had not been fired. The access problem, two people familiar
with the matter, said, appears to have been a technical error,

(01:26:12):
and it was quickly resolved now. The peace didn't stop there.
It also alleged Patel had been plagued by bouts of
excessive drinking, claiming members of his security detail had trouble
waking him on multiple occasions because he was seemingly intoxicated.
It further alleged that breaching equipment, the kind used by

(01:26:34):
swat and hostage rescue teams was requested last year because
Patel had been unreachable behind locked doors. Magalis goes on.
The FBI denied every word of it before the art listen.
Before the article went live, Attorney Jesse Biddell sent a
formal letter to the Atlantic and Fitzpatrick ahead of publication,

(01:26:56):
putting them on notice that the claims were categorically false
and diffametry. This is the letter we sent to the
Atlantic and to Sarah Fitzpatrick before they published their hit
piece on FBI director Cash Ptel. They were on notice
that the claims were categorically false and of hametry. They
published anyway, see you in court now. The Bureau's response

(01:27:19):
was even more direct, print it all false, I'll see
you in court, bring your checkbook, and they printed it
anyway now. Last Friday night, Patel fired back on X
see you and your entire entourage of false reporting in court,
but do keep at it with the fake news actual
malice standard is now what some would call a legal layup. Now,

(01:27:43):
it's worth noting that The Atlantic was apparently the only
outlet willing to run this story. Other DC reporters chased
the same tips and couldn't verify them. They passed, The
Atlantic published it, and now they're going to be sued.
This is what the Atlantic does. They publish outlandish and
bogus stories that no other outlet will touch, which accomplishes

(01:28:04):
the goal of giving democrats and their supporters. This is
the important giving democrats and their supporters reason to insist
the stories are true. The outlet's hoax piece alleging Trump
didn't want to visit an American cemetery near Paris in
twenty eighteen because the troops there who died in battle
were losers and suckers was even disputed by over a

(01:28:27):
dozen witnesses, yet the left still insisted it happened, even
after Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of the Atlantic,
admitted it could have been wrong. So it concludes, well
with what I've got, Matt Bargolus finishes. Sarah Fitzpatrick herself
has a history of publishing bogus hit pieces lacking sources

(01:28:47):
and corroboration. Do you believe this? They lay the carpet
of falsehood, It gets picked up by others, generally in
this case not but generally gets picked up by others
and it spreads. It's like a plague. And that's how
they operate, and that's why the media of the left

(01:29:08):
are trustworthy. Now, on that note, we'll depart from podcast
number three hundred and twenty five. If you would like
to write to us Late on the News Talks, ad
be dot co dot nz or Carolyn Newstalks ADB dot
co dot nz. We shall depart by saying, as always,
thank you for listening and we'll talk soon.

Speaker 1 (01:29:37):
Thank you for more from News Talks B Listen live
on air or online, and keep our shows with you
wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio