Leighton Smith Podcast #327 - May 6th 2026 - David Bell - The Leighton Smith Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News TALKSB. 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 debate Still used now the lighton Smith podcast
powered by Newstalk SEDB.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to Podcasts three hundred and twenty seven for May
the sixth, twenty twenty sixth. The International Health Reform Project
the IHRP was formed in response to a growing crisis
in confidence in international public health governance.

Speaker 3 (00:43):
Now.

Speaker 2 (00:44):
Although this crisis peaked during COVID nineteen, its roots pre
date twenty twenty and reflect deeper problems within the WHO,
the World Health Organization, and the broader global health architecture.
The IHRP panel has developed two linked outputs, the Technical
Report and the Policy Report. In Podcasts three hundred and

(01:05):
twenty one, we cover the Technical Report with Ramesh the Khur.
In this podcast, David Bell covers the Policy Report. Now,
while some of this is deep and meaningful, I suppose
you might say it is a fascinating course that we
are following, and what they're up to at the International
Health Reform Project is arguably the best thing that could

(01:26):
happen in the area of global health. Let me give
you an idea. The failures revealed in COVID nineteen were
not the result of chance or ignorance. They followed from
institutional incentives that rewarded consensus over candor, expansion over focus
at authority without accountability. Unless those incentives change, the next

(01:48):
global emergency will reproduce many of the same errors, regardless
of how much authority or funding is added in the interim.
Public health ethics, together with basic human rights law, are
based around the primacy of freedom of choice, otherwise considered
the necessity of informed consent. While prominent arguments have been

(02:09):
raised against bodily autonomy in the past few years, there
are very good reasons why power in medicine was held
to be the individual patient rather than the practitioner. Now
there is much more and a lot of words of
wisdom in what follows with David Bell. But first there
something else that deserves our attention at this point. Now,

(02:32):
one way or another, you might be familiar with the
name of Alexander Downer. Alexander Downer was the Foreign Affairs
Minister for Australia between nineteen ninety six and two thousand
and seven. And he is frequently seen these days on
Sky News Australia and other news services. And he contributes
in writing as well, such as an article that appeared

(02:54):
in The Australian on Monday of this week before and
I want to quote you some selected sentences from this
particular article. You'll get the gist in a moment. He
starts out with this. When I was a child, my
father used to read me limericks from Edward Lear's Book
of Nonsense. I used to love them. They were nonsense.

(03:14):
I'm reminded of this book whenever I contemplate Australian public policy,
because Australia has descended into the land of nonsense. We've
been through a few years when the government has been
telegus that we have to reduce dependence on fossil fuels,
we have to invest in renewables, we have to increase
the price of fossil fuels to make them less attractive,

(03:35):
and cross subsidize investment in windmills. We've been told that
for years, and many people have been persuaded that by
doing this will somehow change the weather. Once more, we're
told we have to move away from carbon emitting industries
because that too will change the weather. So instead of
emitting carbon dioxide from our own industries, we have moved

(03:57):
to importing products that in their production are high carbon emitters. Now,
since global warming is a global phenomenon, how does that
make sense? Rejuice only between one and one point three
percent of global emissions. What is incredible is that so
many people believe that by building more windmills and solar

(04:18):
panels will stop bushfires and floods, and quite apart from
anything else, we believe by doubling up on our energy
production and thereby reducing productivity in the electricity sector, this
would somehow bring prices down. That is nonsense. Using intermittent
renewables and having to back them up with coal and

(04:39):
gas has increased the price of electricity, not reduced it.
And it's obvious why the renewables don't give us twenty
four to seven electricity. We need to maintain coal and
gas fire generation to produce constant energy, but we have
reduced the output of those power stations. We have to
run two energy systems where we once ran one. The

(05:02):
government says we have a productivity problem in Australia. I
may mention somewhere else of the the comparison from the
parallels between Australia and New Zealand in this particular area.
Plenty others too, but in this particular one, for we
both have serious productivity issues. It's the government that's causing it.

(05:22):
Productivity in the electricity generation sector has declined by thirty
percent across the past twenty years. You see what I
mean by nonsense. And then the Iron War came and
we saw more nonsense. Once upon a time, Anthony Albernzi
was running around the world telling everyone we had to
reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Now he's climbing on

(05:43):
board his fossil fuel driven aircraft and flying from country
to country begging them to maintain supplies. Yes, you guessed it,
supplies of fossil fuels. Now, in the world of nonsense,
no one does a cost benefit analysis before spending money takes.
Snowy two point zero Snowy Mountains scheme is famous world

(06:08):
ride for its original success. It's now well. Snowy two
point zero was introduced by Malcolm Turnbull when he was
Prime Minister and he's pushed it ever since, and I
believe he's still pushing it and he's got his head
in the cement. So it was going to cost two billion.

(06:28):
Now it's estimated the total cost of the project could
be as much as forty billion. Actually it's forty plus.
That is just a staggering amount of money, which even
a wealthy country such as Australia canill. Of Ford Snowy
too is essentially an electricity storage system, like a huge battery,
but at forty billion dollars, it's just a staggering waste

(06:52):
of money, he concludes, does Alexander Danna. He runs through
the various things in which Australia is rich in coal, gas,
uranium and gets to the final Finally, there is uranium.
We export uranium and we have have the world's largest
exploitable reserves of it. However, uranium mining is apparently controversial,

(07:13):
but it's fine to export it from designated places. We're
happy to provide fuel for nuclear power stations abroad, but
opposed to nuclear power stations at home. Our government is
happy to have nuclear reactors in submarines, but it thinks
nuclear power is too dangerous as a source of electricity.
You see what I mean. It's another example of a

(07:34):
country that is descending into nonsense. In fifty years, historians
will look back at what we were doing during the
twenty tens and twenty twenties and think we had gone
slightly mad. Now, the parallels between Australia and New Zealand
should be obvious. I'm not including New Zealand's parallels specifically

(07:54):
because we've been well. Everybody should know what they are now. Anyway,
let's just start and finish, if you like, with net zero.
The foolishness that the administration of this country is exploiting
is just nonsense. So let me tell you something about
Alexander Downer and me. I never liked him. There were

(08:15):
reasons that they no longer matter. All of a sudden.
I like Alexander Downer. I'd like him to come here
and read the same Riot Act to the people who
think that they are running this country now in just
a moment.

Speaker 3 (08:32):
David Bell.

Speaker 2 (08:41):
Buccolan is a natural oral vaccine in a tablet form
called bacterial. I say it it'll boost your 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

(09:02):
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 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 year round.
And remember Buckelan is not intended as an alternative to

(09:25):
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 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. Farmer
Broker Auckland. David Bell is a clinical and public health

(10:06):
physician with a PhD in Population health and background in
internal medicine modeling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously, he
was Director of the Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures,
Global Good Fund in the USA, program Head for Malaria

(10:26):
at Acute Febrile Disease at the Foundation for innovative new
diagnostics and worked on infectious diseases and coordinated malaria diagnostics
strategy at the World Health Organization. He has worked for
twenty years in biotech and international public health, with over
one hundred and twenty research publications. He is Australian born,

(10:49):
has lived all over the world, has worked all over
the world, and is leading a very interesting life. Now
he is based in Texas and that this would be
probably about appearance number eight on the podcast. David's good
to have you back.

Speaker 3 (11:06):
Yeah, thanks Stave, and it's really good to be back.

Speaker 2 (11:08):
Now you've just returned to home in Texas from I
think about a week in Europe, and I'll get you
to outline what that was about in the second. But
referring back to the real cause for today's discussion, the
International Health Reform Project IHRP, rebuilding international health governance on ethics,

(11:31):
evidence and sovereign responsibility. Now, we spoke earlier in the
year to Ramesh the Kur because you and he were
co chairs in organizing this THEHRP panel, and you developed
two linked outputs. Technical report provides the analytical foundation examining ethics,

(11:52):
institutional history, disease burden, financing, governance structures, and legal frameworks.
It's a long list. And the other policy report distills
these findings into principles and reform pathways for policy makers,
and that was the subject mainly for Rummish and you
on the technical report. Now what is the appropriate next question?

(12:18):
Is it what were you doing in Europe? Or is
it how is it progressing so far?

Speaker 3 (12:23):
Well, both, I guess and the reports are called together
called the Right to Health Sovereignty, which is for a
reason because in the end, this is about people making
their own choices in health, which is fundamental to modern
human rights, and about countries representing them in doing so

(12:44):
at an international level. So the reports have come out
in the last few weeks. I was in Europe with
prophysic Brown and Roger Bates, both from also on the panel,
talking to the Pandemic Group at the UK Parliament on
this and the various journalists and think tanks, and I

(13:09):
was actually presenting it's a completely separate project but something
we've talked about before from the University of Leads was
presenting in Switzerland the findings where we found that the
WHO has been and the World Bank have been grossly
misrepresenting issues around the pandemic agenda. And so it's relevant

(13:35):
in that the IHRP International Health Reform panels about what
has gone wrong with international health, the WHO in particular,
and how do we either reform or replace the organization
so that we can have international public health in a

(13:56):
model which is actually beneficial for the world rather than
potentially harmful.

Speaker 2 (14:02):
So I would imagine that you've confronted yourselves with a
fairly severe task to achieve what would you say at
this point?

Speaker 3 (14:12):
It is, But it's also just statingly obvious. So it's
been it's a difficult task in that it's not popular
because there's a lot of money now to be made
by maintaining the current direction of international public health and
the current direction of WHO, which is about maximizing the
use of commodities in health. That WHO is to a

(14:35):
large extenter marketing organization for its funders, who are no
longer dominated by states but by private individuals and public
private partnerships that are based around health commodities. So there's
a lot of headwind to go against in just saying

(14:56):
perhaps international health should be about concentrating on the main
things that make people sick and die and doing this
in a way that where people are in control rather
than a centralized bureaucracy who are paid by people and
entities with large vested interests. I think there are ports

(15:18):
layers out very well. They're orthodox public health. There's really
nothing controversial in our approach. We base public health, international
public health around basic human rights, going back to the
hypocratic oath and to the idea of voluntary and form
consent that's fundamental to post World War two medicine and

(15:41):
public health, and looking at what makes a difference in
public health in terms of interventions, and then how do
you do these at a national and an international level
in a way where those human rights are preserved. So
that's all we've done. That, it's how public health has
been mostly taught up to the last decade or so historically,

(16:06):
and it's in line. You know that there's nothing political
about it except that it is strongly against a sort
of centralized authoritarian approach to the way we run society.
And you know, so it's unpopular with those who prefer

(16:29):
that or who are paid by vested interests who who
like that approach, but you know, from a public health
point of view, an orthodox public health and orthodox human
Rights understanding and the international human rights law. It's what
we're laying out is essentially what international organizations are supposed

(16:51):
to do in the modern world.

Speaker 2 (16:53):
What I'm interested in now is the reaction that that
you've got from other parts of the world, starting not surprisingly,
starting with the New Zealand, because New Zealand is avoiding
at this point and hopefully forward is avoiding being involved
with the WHO from now.

Speaker 3 (17:16):
Yeah, they're avoiding I think the Pandemic Agreement interest or
health regulations, or there's a trying to I think the
IHR that they have not signed onto the amendments, which
is very sensible and it reflects and they've recognized. I
think one of the problems with the way that the

(17:38):
World Health Organization is going with treaties and the Pandemic
Agreement in the IHR are good examples where you take
public health and a certain view of public health, and
then you make it a legal treaty, a legal agreement,
which is the antithesis of how public health should be done,

(17:59):
because then something may change, priorities change, but you have
a legal framework that is inflexible, so countries have to
keep doing what is not in their interests because they've
signed on unto international law and New Zealand is trying
to avoid that trap very sensibly. So they're taking both

(18:22):
a common sense approach for New Zealanders but also a
common sense approach from public health, which should obviously be flexible.
Any agreement should be flexible and should change with changing
evidence and changing health priorities. So it's but I mean,
the reason this has been put in place is because

(18:46):
there is a huge amount of money to be made
now from a global market in health. And the largest
funders now of the World Health Organization, well, the largest
one is the Gates Foundation, The second is GAVI, which
is a public private partnership specifically for vaccine, so pharmaceuticals.

(19:07):
The third is i think the European Commission, so it's
not a state and it's very close to pharmaceutical industry,
and then the World Bank for whatever reason. Then you
get down to it's the fifth or sixth. You get
to Germany. The US was there, but they're not. They've
dropped out now and so the largest country is contributing

(19:29):
two or three percent, but you have someone like the
Gates Foundation directed contributing about thirteen fourteen percent, and then
adding more through Gabby. So probably about twenty percent of
that funding for an international public health body is coming
from one individual. It may mean well, but has no

(19:49):
background in public health and no background in diseases of
poverty and of living in other cultures. So you know,
there's nothing It can be a good thing for people
to give away their money, but it makes no sense
for the world to base their own health decisions on

(20:12):
the whims of a private individual and who has drifted
down this path for a number of reasons. But if
you're going to make an if you're going to design
an interestal health organization, now you would never design it
on a model where a few private individuals from a
few countries and corporations who are there to make profit

(20:35):
for their investors have a key role when deciding policy.
It's just obviously you would not do that. What are you?

Speaker 2 (20:43):
That is where we are now, So what's what's your
take then? On the what would I call it the
not withdrawal but pullback that was made by Bill Gates.

Speaker 3 (20:58):
Is a pullback on climate change. I don't think there's
a pullback on health. I think I think you're right.
I think so. And the climate change one was because
of a recognition, and cute, I see that imposing You know,
if you believe that hydrocarbon CO two is driving climate change,

(21:21):
and imposing restrictions on poor people is going to make
them even poorer and even less healthy. So here was
a recognition that you have to actually deal with poverty
before you deal with the whims of people in wealthy
countries around climate change.

Speaker 2 (21:38):
So I turned to the page from the International Health
Reform Project, which is an information page. Really sovereignty as
responsibility the policy report advance as a conception of health
sovereignty grounded in responsibility, not isolationism, states their primary responsibility

(22:00):
for protecting the population's health. International organizations exist to support states,
not replace or over them, So that deals with that
International cooperation derives legitimacy from voluntary state participation. When authority
drifts towards centralized technocratic bodies detached from domestic accountability, legitimacy weakens,

(22:26):
even if intentions are benign. Now you possibly wrote that,
but is there anything you'd say about it or add
to it.

Speaker 3 (22:36):
So we're saying, and were clear there that the states
who have a responsibility for the health of their people,
they have to decide how they do that, but as
a legitimate state, they should be concerned about that, and
there should be a concern on an international level. So the
state should be working together. And there are a number
of reasons for that. I mean, well, one is there's

(22:59):
a moral case that if people, through no fault of
their own, are suffering from a severe outbreak or calamity,
if it's your neighbors, you help them out. That's what
decent people do. And if you can work collaboratively in
that with other states, is much more efficient, and so
you're waste less of your tax payers money in doing so.

(23:21):
There are advantages to international stability, et cetera. If you
reduce poverty by having better health. So there are a
lot of reasons for international cooperation, some of out of
self interest, out of just the decent way that humans
should act together. But all of this should be based

(23:42):
on the idea of sovereignty, and state sovereignty is a
reflection of the collective sovereignty of individuals. So we go
back to the hipocratic owth of beneficients and non maleficent efficients,
which is do no harm patient confidentiality. So it's a

(24:07):
patient's business and not the rest of the world about
them concerning their medical status. And then the other one
that's added in is the basis of World War two
human rights and so on, which is voluntary in form consent.
So you cannot impose something on a person, even if

(24:27):
you think it's good for them, if they don't want it,
and they have to be informed and make the choice,
and so those four things are fundamental to it. Means
you can't just go and inject someone to help someone
else if they don't want to be injected, end of story.
And there's no way around that unless you want to

(24:50):
go against the basis of body autonomy and individual sovereignty
inequality of people, which was brought en after the Second
World War as a response to fascism and colonialism. All
modern humor rights or is based around those principles. So
you transfer that to a state, because an individual can't

(25:14):
say what should happen in another country, but an individual
can express themselves collected with others through a state. And
states aren't perfect, but it is the best way we
have of managing the way that we talk to each
other on that level. But there is absolutely no role
for some unelected, unaccountable group at the center of it.

(25:40):
All to actually dictate what states do, because in the
end that would be an infringement of individual sovereignty. So
we base the whole. You know that this is a
principle that governs the United Nations, is based on sovereignty
of states. Now that we see that drifting, as we

(26:00):
see the WHO drifting, as the people at the top
of the organization are there for a long time and
start to become more aligned with say that people go
to the same club and happen to run very large
corporations rather than the people in countries that they were
that they're supposed to eventually be serving. And you see

(26:25):
the same WHO. You also have the problem with both
organizations of a bureaucracy that has lifetime tenures, so you
know there are people in the Who I know who've
been there for twenty five thirty years and essentially the
same job. So you don't then see your role as
trying to do the best thing for other countries and

(26:47):
making yourself redundant and out of a job by building
capacity in countries. You see your role as expanding your group,
protecting your organization, the WHO, and you know, the UN
which is the health agency of both. Seeing this strift
to become a sort of an end and unto themselves

(27:08):
and the closest to the private sector. The fact that
now a lot of Who's work is dictated by the
private sector through specified funding. They give the money into
all the WHO what to do for most of the
WHO with money. So this sort of it inevitably pushes

(27:30):
them away from their role of serving populations. And it
also it makes them feel that they essentially have a
right to exist for their own sake and that they
have a role in dictating. So it's hard to reform
that because you're working with the same people and the
same leadership. In theory, you can and you can bring

(27:53):
in rules about private money, about conflict of interest, et cetera.
You can bring in staff rules where you only work
in an organization for seven or ten years and then
you go and do something else. And I think that
would be a really good good idea because in the end,
something like the World Health Organization, there are a few
things that does, like setting standards for certain drugs and

(28:18):
so on, that we can all agree with, and it
makes it more efficient and predictable. They can do that
at a central level, and it makes a lot of
sense but most of their work is supposed to be
helping address certain diseases of poverty, essentially malaria to perculosis,
et cetera, outbreaks infectious diseases, and building capacity in countries

(28:41):
with the countries that lack this in the nineteen fifties
and nineteen sixties because they came out of colonialism a
lot of them and are quite poor, so building their
capacity so that they can look after themselves. So and
a successful organization would be downsizing and making itself redundant
because the US does not need the WHO. The New

(29:05):
Zealand doesn't really need the WHO. New Zealand's fine, you
can look after itself. It's useful to have the WHO
for a few things that I discussed, but in general
it's not depend on the WHO. So more and more
countries should be like that. The WHO should be getting
smaller and smaller, but instead we have the organization. It's

(29:27):
been steadily growing, steadily expanding its mission, et cetera. And
this is inevitable if the organization is structured the way
it is, rather than being structured in order to serve
the populations that and strengthen their capacity to be independent.

Speaker 2 (29:48):
So what do you go as far as saying that
the system that as it has existed and still does
is prone to corruption.

Speaker 3 (30:00):
Yeah, corruption in I mean yes it is, but corruption
mainly in being pushed away from its primary role to
a different role that serves the vested interest that's funding it.
So THEHO now puts quite a little heed into the

(30:21):
things that we know make people live longer and healthier,
which is much better nutrition, better sanitation, but a living space,
and access to essential medical care so really access, so
good community health workers, etc. And it puts more and

(30:42):
more emphasis on commodity based care, where you spend quite
a lot of money for something that's usually got a
patent to fix a specific disease. And then you know,
if you're a child in Democratic Republic of Congo and
you get a vaccination to empos, okay, fine, you'll probably
quite likely die of pneumonia or malaria next year. But

(31:06):
if you have better nutrition then youll withstand all of that.
But there's no money in that nutrition, So no one
is paying the WHO to do better nutrition or paying
very little specified funding for the WHO is very strongly
skee towards where you can use a commodity to fix

(31:29):
a specific problem. And someone makes money out of that,
and this isn't surprising, it's not unexpected. The drug companies
are there primarily to make money, not to make people
happier or live longer. They're there to make money. That's
how capitalism works, and if you have the right rules,

(31:52):
then that can be a good thing for the whole community.
If you don't have those rules and you let the
people whose job is to make money also make the
policy on on how the thing that the commodity is
for will be managed, then it is their job to

(32:13):
ensure that the commodity they're making is used. So they
will push the WHO to emphasize the vaccines that they're making,
the antibiotics that they're making, et cetera. So it's inevitable
that that happens if you have the model which the

(32:33):
WHO has moved to, and it's common sense. It's it
doesn't take a lot of brain power to figure that out.
It's just the way the humans work. It's the way
these companies are supposed to work. If they get involved
with who, it has to be for the benefit of
the shareholders, they're not doing it for the benefit of
the rest of the world. And they have a legal
opplication to the shareholders. So this is the way that

(32:57):
global health has gone and the large organizations such as
WHO within it. If you have a model where those
people can't give money, and even if they give any
at all, they cannot direct how it's used, and if
the people there's enough staff turn over, the staff don't

(33:18):
see the next twenty years is being dependent on pleasing
this particular funder so that they will keep getting money.
Then you can actually go back to the organization emphasizing
the things in public health that actually make people live
longer and better lives, and that some of that may

(33:40):
involve in some of that may be profitable for someone,
for some company somewhere, and some of them may not.
But the organization's role is no longer to please that
company or that private individual. It's gone back to actually
serving populations, to get them on their own feet and
get themselves sufficient and healthy. So you need to structure

(34:05):
the model very differently to do those two things. We
point out in the reports that the model of profit
vertical programs emphasizing profit is essentially where who has gone
now is drifted there over two three decades, and we
need to go back to a model that makes sense

(34:26):
for international public health. There will we not saying you
can't take the WHO back there. You may be able
to be extremely difficult to change your huge bureaucracy, and
you know cleaning, You need to decentralize, you need decits,
making the proofree. You need to interpret recommendations. If you

(34:46):
take COVID as example, the populations of Europe and Sub
Saquaran Africa are highly different, so who can give their recommendations.
European countries would interpret them in one way, African countries
would intert them very differently. And who should have actually
been giving very different recommendations and advice based on subsidiarity,

(35:11):
based on the the epidemiology, the priorities, et cetera, and
the population structure of those different places, But they didn't
because it's highly centralized. And in the end, I think
lashal vaccination, which was very much on the agenda of

(35:31):
their large funders, was the priority.

Speaker 2 (35:35):
All right, well, there's one question in my mind that
I want to offload now before I forget it. We're
talking well, we are talking overall about individualism and the
right to not be assaulted by an authoritarian government over

(35:55):
what you want, want and what you don't want. So
the question is to me, when do you know that
they're not bullying you? For instance, and I'm referring to
this country, of course, but not not solely, where we're
not going to force you to take it. It's your

(36:15):
choice not to. But if you don't take it, then
there is a price to pay, like losing your job. Yeah,
what would you what would you call that?

Speaker 3 (36:26):
It's called coercion, isn't it. There's an English word for its, coercion,
And it's supposed to be anathema to public health because
it's no longer a voluntary, informed consent. You're you're palling
yourself if you think that forcing someone to lose their

(36:47):
job and so on is not coercion, stopping them from
seeing their family, et cetera. Now, if someone's got to
eat bolder and they're bleeding through the nose and so on,
then you're not going to let them go and work
in a kindergarten. But I mean that's just obvious anyway.
But in end, unless there are extremely compelling reasons, you

(37:15):
have to let the person have you know, well, you
certainly you have to let the person have a choice anyway,
But there any restrictions you put on them as a
result of that choice have to be with a really
strong public health basis and time limited and as a
last resort. Now, the problem here is that it completely

(37:41):
relies on the institution being honest. So the work I've
been involved in the University of Leeds has shown that,
for instance, the World Health Organization, the World Bank, the
G twenty secretariat have been grossly misrepresenting the risk of

(38:01):
pandemics and the return on investment to countries. So the
example so we saw in COVID gross misrepresentation of efficacy
and safety of vaccines. So you need the institution that
is giving the advice to be completely evidence based and

(38:25):
completely free of conflict of interest. So again, once you
have something like the WHO taking money and specified funding
from vested interests, then it can no longer be a
legitimate part of that process, of that decision making process.

Speaker 2 (38:49):
I'm interested in what you might say to this. There
are people who are now saying, you know, we're over
the COVID discussion. It's been and gone and forget about
it and move on. They don't want to know any
more detail. Whereas your approach to all of this is

(39:12):
based precisely on what took place during the COVID era,
and that is the lesson learning classroom correct.

Speaker 3 (39:21):
Yes, So COVID made it very clear what the problems are.
The problems preceded COVID. They you know, this has been
breen for a couple of decades, but COVID made it
very clear that how bad things had become. I think
in that we did see very high levels of coercion

(39:42):
of false information, misleading information from public health bodies, et cetera.
And so I think a lot of people had the
sort of fail poured from over their eyes and saw
what was going on and st you know, the underlying

(40:05):
problem of conflict of interests, et cetera and power vested
interest in global health had been there, and I think people,
you know, just the media doesn't want to talk about it.
People want to believe that these institutions are there for
their own goods. So I think your COVID played a
really important role in exposed in the public exposing it

(40:29):
to the public. It hasn't. It's also exposed it to
the public health community, but they're very, very reluctant to
face it because the careers and salaries will depend on
being compliant. So you know, it's interesting when we present
our findings from the University of Leeds or we took

(40:50):
about this project the HP that you get very little
real pushback from public health people saying you know, you're
wrong on this, or you're wrong on that, or no
one's going to say, yeah, we shouldn't bother about basic
human rights or we shouldn't bother about evidence based public health.

(41:11):
So people recognize and will say privately, yes, you're right,
even say please keep doing this, but on a public level,
almost no one says anything because it can be a
career rending move to because you know, these vested interests
are they're funding things for a reason, and there will

(41:34):
be stupid to fund someone who harms their potential markets.

Speaker 2 (41:39):
What the IHRP Report means for I've got lots of
articles in front of it, and they're mostly mostly essays
of some considerable length, like up to twenty pages, so
it's it's been an interesting challenge to work my way
through them all. But what the IHRP Report means for America,

(42:03):
the who and the future of global health. Now, this
was written by your good self Ramesnika and Roger Bate
and published through Brownstone. Is there anything about I'm not
trying to cast dispersions, I'm trying to prevent them from
being cast in the first place. But is there anything

(42:23):
about Brownstone that could concern people because they're the ones
who are funneling the majority of the of this information
and support over the over the i h RP.

Speaker 3 (42:44):
Is that a fair question. Yeah, Brownstone funded the development
to the reports. Brownstone Institute is was set up basically
during COVID to foster free speech and exchange of ideas
because it was extremely difficult to do that, and it
became the home for people who were canceled on social

(43:08):
media and elsewhere and professionally for speaking out against the
COVID issues and COVID restrictions initially, but it's broadened out.
But yeah, so because this is the irony latent, because
it was full of people who opposed large multinational corporations

(43:33):
and mass media who when they were sponsored by those
corporations and giving a clear biased narrative that supported big money,
they were labeled as far right. So if you google
it you'll find things, you know, Wikipedia or something to

(43:53):
talk about far right and time. So this is it's
interesting isn't it. It's like most of the people that's
involved in Brownstone and started work from like myself, I
think from Judisi, from the left side of politics. So
we thought human rights were important. We thought multinational corporations

(44:19):
had a place, but they shouldn't be running the world,
and they shouldn't be running healthcare. And basically, you know,
there's a quality of people that could choose the path
they want that we should actually be honest with each other.
So there's not it's right or left, it's just basically

(44:42):
the idea of modern democracy in a way. So because
people there then we're seeing as going against these vested
interests who were funding the media. The media labeled them
as you know, with a political label that they thought

(45:02):
would harm we would reduce a number of people who
take notice of what's being published. So in the end,
you've just got to get on with life and tell
the truth and be honest. And you know, to label

(45:23):
most of what comes out of Brownstone, or to label
the reports that we have written as anything to do
with some sort of far right agenda is just ludicrous
because actually it's if you went back thirty years, you'll
be saying it's the opposite. There was a time when

(45:43):
the left of politics was not sponsored by Sukoper, Gates
and Sorrows, large billionaires, but it was actually seen as
opposing inequality and a sort of concentration of wealth among
a very few. So now it isn't. Now we've gone

(46:06):
the other way. And so you know, I think those
labels right left, far left, right, whatever, they have no
meaning anymore. I think you believe in, basically in the
equality of individuals and sovereignty of individuals, and you figure
out the best ways politically that that can be expressed,

(46:29):
so that individuals have a role in who rules over
them or actually makes decisions for the collective, and we
call that countries or states, and you hope that they're
completely accountable to the people, and so that in the end, individuals,

(46:49):
individual humans are the boss. And you know, the alternative
is that you have a few people who concentrate wealth
and power for their own ends, and they run health care,
and they run countries and they run everything else, and
everyone else is essentially a serf or a slave, and

(47:11):
you have a feudal system or a fascististem whatever you
call it, but some sort of authoritarian system. So they're
the two sides really now, I think of modern politics
and the left right stuff is just a construct of
the media. But the reports that we've written are based
around that idea that people are equal and have a

(47:34):
choice in what happens to them. So you can label
that far right, or you can label it far left,
or you labeled anything, but it's just a city label.
It's in the end, it's about someone having a choice
over what happens to their own body.

Speaker 2 (47:50):
Independence.

Speaker 3 (47:53):
Yeah, were independent, and there is a codependence. We're not
complete islands. You know, what we do does affect someone
else sometimes, So there is also responsibility that comes with that.
And you need to have a country that can with
borders within which you can then have a vote or

(48:15):
some similar way of getting your opinions involved in how
the country, how that is run, so that they affect
the sort of services and things that you get in
your roads, your healthcare, whatever. So we do need countries,
but they need to be based around the idea that

(48:36):
the government is there for the sake of the individuals,
not the other way around. So you know, that's not
a radical idea. It's the basis of a lot of
constitutions around the world. It's the basis of post World
War two human rights law internationally, and that's where we are.
But I think there is a real push to go

(48:58):
back to the pre war, pre World War two idea
that you have very strong central power decides what people do.
And I think that in many ways that's what we've
been seeing with the WHO, with the European Union, others
who are obviously collaborating together and as there's a reason

(49:21):
why the EU is one of the biggest three fund
four funders of the WHO. Yeah, so this is a basis.
That's my response to that. The issue of Brownstone has
been there to try to allow such views to be
expressed against the flow of money, and it's done a

(49:46):
good job of that. There is the work that we're
doing isn't going to make money for a specific funder.
So you need a funder like Brownstan that's not looking
for personal profit or some sort of payback.

Speaker 2 (50:01):
So so back to the just back to the report
and what it means for America. Who in the future
of global health. Let me quote the COVID nineteen pandemic
exposed deep failures in global health governance. That much is
now widely acknowledged, even by institutions that initially resisted self examination.

(50:27):
For example, the recent Lancet Commission on COVID nineteen substituted
advocacy for analysis, evaded institutional accountability, and ultimately clarified little
about why global about why global pandemic governance failed. What
remains unsettled and largely undiscussed in public is what those

(50:50):
failures imply for the future of international health cooperation and
especially for the role of the World Health Organization. So
picking it up from there, you're a prominent person in
this equation, So what is your ainion on how this
should roll out?

Speaker 3 (51:12):
Yeah, in the end, countries need to make up their
own minds because you know, as we said, they represent individuals.
We somehow have to get a big money invested interests
out of the decision making. This is extremely difficult. The
Lancet is a good example. The Lancet is owned by

(51:34):
a publishing house. It's owned by another publishing house that's
you know, the majority ownership of that he is Blackrock
and Vanguard, large investment houses. Lancet's sole role is to
maximize return on investment for those investment houses in the end,

(51:56):
and for their portfolio of other investments. So the Lancet.
Now the Lancer gets money directly from pharmaceuticals, etc. Through
advertising whatever it is their interest primarily to keep money
flowing to the Lancet. They've identified that the best way

(52:16):
to do that is to work with very large philanthropists
and their foundations and with large pharmaceutical interests. A classic
is you know, they published a paper the Lancet on
hydroxychloroquin and COVID back in I think it's late twenty twenty.

(52:38):
There was puvotal in people saying hydroxychlorin had no effect
on COVID and the paper was completely fortunate. It wasn't
There were some mistakes and some errors in the analysis.
It was completely made up from start to finish that

(53:00):
patients never existed, thousands of them. So and if you
read it, it was obvious because there's something like three
hundred hospitals or something, and of course they didn't have
all this data from all these hospitals and no one
ever heard of it, so it's obviously completely fraudulent paper
from the beginning. Lancet published it and they had a
huge impact on future funding, future profits rather for certain

(53:26):
COVID vaccines because it was one of the big things
which sort of turned people against the idea that COVID
could be treated by other means. When you have things
like the Lancet and New England Journal and so on
in this position, and you even have ex editors from
the New England Journal saying this is such a problem.

(53:47):
And then the newspapers also the largest the largest sponsors
of newspapers in the United States, pharmaceutical industry, et cetera,
of the media. So it is very difficult to change
direction because all the main areas that infla society are

(54:10):
bought out and have their own interests in survival by
turning the line. So we have to find in the
end the only thing that can happen, I think is
countries and blocks of countries, and I think the African
States are an important area because they're pushing back at
the moment in Geneva against the parts of the Pandemic

(54:32):
Agreement which they see as a colonialist endeavor, which is
because it is a colonialist endeavor. So we need states
like that to be able to stand up and say,
you know, as thirty or forty states, we need to
go in a new direction. Either the Dubho completely reforms
itself along these lines, or we start our own organization

(54:56):
in Africa, African Health Organization. You have the ritual Office
in the South and the Western and North Central, et cetera.
So you have which makes more sense than how they
are now, and it's run there. But you also need
some wealthier countries to help support this at the moment
because of the way that the world is. So in

(55:16):
the end, we produce these reports and we're keeping working
on this, and our aim is to try to get
a more sensible conversation than the knee jerk reactions out there.
Have just given more money to WHO and centralize it more,
and then the experts in WHO will make everything better,

(55:39):
which is coming from a few other areas and is
hardly going to address the underlying problems that we see,
is just going to make them worse. So he's trying
to get a sensible conversation and we're trying to help
countries to approach this in a rational way.

Speaker 2 (55:56):
Here's what I think is a good question. At this point.
The head of the WHO this is in my opinion,
no respect and doesn't deserve to be there. How do
you how do you propose or how do you imagine
that can be rectified if you agree.

Speaker 3 (56:19):
Yeah, it's a hard one. So what is his job?
What is director General's job? Is it to maximize the
funding for the organization or is it to ensure that
the organization does the best it can for the health

(56:41):
of the world, which are very different. And in doing
the latter he may end up with a reduction in funding,
or he will because there will be less incentive for
private vested interest to get money to the organization. So no,
partly because of the way it's gone, the largest form
of funder, the US is left anyway, but as for

(57:03):
other reasons as well, but there's a general loss of
trust in the WHO because people have worken up through
COVID and other things, and in the end that will
harm the organization long term, and it would have been
much better off sticking to help the good public health
principles and refusing the extra money that these vested interests brought.

(57:27):
So he will be his Tedros Gabriensis. He will be
finish his term in twenty twenty seven and there'll be
a new one coming in. Is a very political process.
Large funders to the WHO have a very significant interest,
although the States do the voting. There's a lot of

(57:48):
money involved in this. And remember you know when we
talk about countries voting, it is actually individuals in those countries.
So I've been proofly involved, for instance, in a regional
election for a regional director which is just under the
detail in one region. And I was told by one

(58:13):
of the delegates that on the voting for the country
that eventually got it, it's delicate to be resource director
and our white envelopes to and I know which country
is about forty different countries to the delegates of those
which presumably had money in them, and it is just

(58:34):
it got to the point where they had to do
it just in front of everyone because it was they
was the vocus to unclear. And so you know, those
sorts of things happen, and that has a big impact
on who ends up with the top job in these organizations.

Speaker 2 (58:51):
I suppose you what I would tell us who it was.

Speaker 3 (58:56):
No, it wasn't the most corrupt. It's it's one of
the reasons that it's got a reputation of being one
of the least corrupt. Yeah, and it's even delegates ended
up at the hotel. They came to the hotel that
dobto book for them, and another country that one is
delegate there for a lot of them said no, we're

(59:18):
paying for another much nicer hotel for you and truck
them all over there where they had pre use at
the bar and everything else. So it gets down to
that level to choose the who's in charge. Sometimes at
the central level it's much more. You know, certain countries
that want a lot of influence will all a meeting

(59:41):
and invite twenty other presidents to come to a resort,
or they'll make promises of new roads and new airports.
So that is how the decisions are made, and they
can be pretty hard for a country to push back against.
But I think in the end it doesn't make that
much difference who is going to be put in as

(01:00:03):
the director general they unless they because is someone who
is going to say I'm going to downsize the organization,
I'm going to decentralize it, push a lot of people
out of the central office, and refuse to take tied

(01:00:25):
money from obvious vested interests. I don't think they're going
to get elected under the current system, so I don't
think I don't think there's enough there are not influential
countries who are interested enough in that. The European Union,
which will speak for most of the European countries, has

(01:00:48):
a very strong interest in the status quo and in
centralizing authority and not having states have their own independence
for obvious reasons. Other states that are more interested in
that are much more susceptible to incentives to vote otherwise incentives. Yes,

(01:01:14):
so I think who's in charge of your organization makes
very little difference.

Speaker 2 (01:01:19):
Well, I was, I was.

Speaker 3 (01:01:21):
Not Ted Ross. Who's who's taken it down this path?
It's these vested interests, and in the end, too many
countries have allowed these things to seep in, and there
hasn't been enough interest in stopping it. I think since
COVID has.

Speaker 2 (01:01:38):
Become clearer, my my connection was with that with Ted
Ross and his defense of China and Wuhan, or over
Wuhan at the at the time when I when I
talk about or when I mentioned corruption, I mean he
is a Marxist, certainly was and once a Marxist, always

(01:02:01):
a Marxist. And I wondered, I wonder, first of all,
how on earth he would be able to obtain the
position in the first place. That doesn't require an answer
because you know, it just follows procedure, but how he
how he can still be there after the Chinese connection.

Speaker 3 (01:02:22):
Well, I think this comes down to we had to
step back and say, what is the WHO for? Which
is what we're saying in our report. So in a way,
China should have a big influence on the WHO because
China's one point three billion people. India should have a
big influence, but all countries should have some influence, but

(01:02:43):
you'd think China should have more influence than our for instance,
although technically is one country, one vote in the world
worth assembly. So I'm fine with that, and I'm fine
with China actually talking to other countries and saying, oh,
we want this one and we want that one in

(01:03:03):
But it shouldn't matter because the WHO should not have
the power to impose anything on anyone. So if it's
hiring people for their technical ability only and their short
term appointments, and it can only give advice and it's
up to countries completely as sovereign states, to make their

(01:03:25):
own decisions on everything to do with health, then it
sort of doesn't matter. So we sort of say, isn't
it terrible? China is well, China is a large chunk
of the world's population. So by rights, you know, it's
not supposed to be a Western organization. It's supposed to
be a global organization. The point is that whether it's
DUBH or UN or whoever, no organization should be able

(01:03:50):
to dictate to sovereign states what they do. And so
half of the member states of THEH are not democracies
at all. You know, if we pretend that our country
is set democracies for a moment there because we say
we are, and to some extent we are, a lot

(01:04:14):
of countries don't even pretend to be so, but they're
equal members of the WHO. And again I'm fine with that.
Is just that no organization with that structure should be
telling my country what to do. They can give advice,
they can hire some technical people who can give some
technical advice, and they can collate some data, and we

(01:04:34):
can use it as a conduit to have meetings who
work together in a coordinated way, But they cannot be
setting policy that my country has to agree with because
my country ostensibly believes in government being accountable to the people,
not telling the people what to do. So I think
we need to first say, what is the organization supposed

(01:04:59):
to be for and how should that be structured? And
what are its limits? And then we can say or
does it really matter who is in charge? Not so
much so.

Speaker 2 (01:05:12):
The WHO is building a supra national vaccine authorization mechanism.
It's a mouthful written by Yaffa Scherez, published by Brownstone,
and I'll quote you, I need to ask someone else
to take responsibility for the second part of the approvals
process so that I won't have a conflict of interest.

(01:05:34):
I'm also working with Bill Gates and the World Health
Organization on the vaccine itself. Close quote. This admission of
a conflict of interest was made by Professor Lester Shulman,
Secretary of the Ministry of Health's Polio Committee, in March
of twenty twenty three, during an internal discussion about approving
the importation into Israel of a new polio vaccine. The

(01:05:59):
vaccine was developed and promoted by the World Health Organization
in collaboration with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and
its approved pathway relied on a new emergency authorization mechanism
the WHO has developed in recent years, which is known
as eu L Emergency Use Listing Now. Although the remark

(01:06:23):
was framed as a technical aside. It was an unusual
confession of a conflict of interest by the committee secretary.
Its seriousness is compounded by the fact that it was
made only after the committee had already voted by an
overwhelming majority to initiate the process of bringing the vaccine

(01:06:45):
to Israel, and after it had already worked vigorously to
persuade the pharmaceutical division to cooperate. One more sentence. The
quotation does not appear in the official minutes of the
meeting that were provided to us. It is heard on
an audio recording of the session, one of several recordings

(01:07:05):
passed on to us by a whistleblower. The minute were
provided only following a freedom of information request and subsequent litigation. Comment.

Speaker 3 (01:07:17):
Yeah. First, yeah, it's a very good article that wrote
and I recommend if people want to understand how this
whole process works and the problems that have grown into it,
then get that article and read it. So it's about
the COVID vaccine approval in Israel. Yeah, as a physician there,

(01:07:39):
this is sort of what I was talking about the
when we're talking about experts on committees in who or whatever,
these are people who also work for large philanthropic foundations
or for certain governments, etc. And they're all dependent on funding,

(01:08:00):
and they're all dependent on grants or keeping their salary
by keeping some unhappy. So they're not really independent, and
it's very rare for people to be truly independent. And
it's part of a club. And it's a very latest
sort of thing in globe with the topic global health now.
And you know, you go to the same people, have

(01:08:21):
the same meetings in after travel business class, staying very
nice hotels, and it's very collegial. This was a case
where the person been on the committee in the WHO.
The EUL emergency use listing or it's like an emergency
use authorization as we call it in the US, is

(01:08:41):
a fast track to get a pharmaceutical in this case
of vaccine approved without having to go through all the
usual more rigorous trials and documentation, et cetera. So it's
a fast track for a company to make a profit.
And there may be a good or reason for it,
or they may not from a public health standpoint, but

(01:09:04):
it's very attractive to companies. So this person on the
WHO committee and then they were on the Israeli committee
and without pointing it out they had this interest in
getting it across and that the Uradi Committee had very
little information if you really article from the drug manufacturer

(01:09:27):
and very little trial data, et cetera. They just had
the word of the WHO Committee and some PowerPoint presentations.
And these are PowerPoint presentations who are done by people
who were dependent on desing certain individuals who have vested
interests in order to get continued funding, et cetera. So

(01:09:52):
people think, and the efforts pointed thing is that the
average is RADI citizen thinks there's been a really vigorous,
rigorous process to make these decisions. And so you take
a vaccine and you give it to your children because
the experts of been through it and surely they've gone
through a dossia. They've looked at the manufacturing standards, they've

(01:10:14):
looked at the trials and made sure that it made
people better and it made people worse, et cetera. And
then what she's shown is that none of that really
applied at all to the decision making, that there was
very different pressures and in the end the thing was
approved with very little solid data. So this is what

(01:10:42):
a lot of people have worken up with from COVID.
I think with vaccines in general, and that childhood vaccination
schedule in the US as an extreme example, but where
people have realized they actually aren't. All these things have
gone through, even through the normal process without really rigorous
placebo controlled trials. It doesn't mean they're good or bad,

(01:11:04):
but the public had been deceived very much, and a
lot of medical practitioners into thinking that there's a really
rigorous process here, but it's not. It's really a club
of people who work for and have associations with people
who will make money from the whole process. And so

(01:11:25):
it is in everyone's interests at that level just to
get the whole thing through, get it to the public,
and have as little accountability as possible. And even as
a medical practitioner, I used to assume that all these
decisions were made well and that our reg electory agencies
were very thorough. It's become clear over recent years that

(01:11:51):
that's not the case at all.

Speaker 2 (01:11:53):
I think finally, one last question, what do you think
is the biggest hurdle for what you're trying to achieves.

Speaker 3 (01:12:01):
It's money. It's the desire for people to enrich themselves
and small, relatively small percentage of the population have found
a way of enriching themselves very effectively through global health
and through a market of eight eight and a half
billion people. And it's become so deep now, and it's

(01:12:26):
not just those people. There's that level, and then there's this,
you know, the people I've just been talking about, the
public health global health workforce, who have you know, they
have their kids in school, they have their health care
to worry about, they have their pensions to worry about,
and they have their continued selling SAX twenty. Isn't they

(01:12:50):
all rely or they perceive that they rely on pleasing
these very small group of strong vested interests. And there's
no free, independent media, et cetera on a large scale
who can sort of blow the lid off this. So
it is just very difficult one to push against this

(01:13:13):
level of vested interest from those with the money that
are running the whole thing. And secondly, it's very difficult
to push against a whole workforce of people who have
their children to worry about and their mortgage to worry

(01:13:33):
about and all the rest of it, and will see
any big change in the status quo as putting them
at risk. But in the end, the world is suffering
as a result, and nutrition funding is going down and
that will absolutely increase childhood mortality. Malaria is getting worse,
and funding in real terms is going down. Tuberculosis the same.

(01:13:56):
The big things that kill people and that you can
do something about on an interatal scale are getting less
funding and less attention, and the result will be more
avoidable death and more poverty, worse public health outcome. So
that's clear, and that's essentially inevitable if we continue on

(01:14:20):
as we are. So in the end, countries and their
people need to start understanding this, and that's where the
pressure has to come from, because I don't think it's
going to come from the public health community itself. Unfortunately.

Speaker 2 (01:14:35):
All right, there are so many other things I could
have raised with you. There are some things I wish
I had, so I guess I can save them the
next time, because they're going to be consistent in their presence.
But individualism the basis of public health or its nemesis
by repair ri double pare what's repair?

Speaker 3 (01:15:00):
So Repair is the University of Leeds project that I mentioned,
So it's completely separate from the ihip, but it's it's
an independent project run by the University of Leads, which
has been looking at the international pandemic agenda from Evan's

(01:15:21):
point of view, and particularly look at the evidences used
in the citations used by the World Bank G twenty
et cetera, who are pushing for a very large diversion
of funds to pandemic preparedness. And we're not saying it's
intrinsically good or bad thing. I mean, pandemics will happen,
is good to be prepared for them. But we're looking

(01:15:43):
at how at the messaging that's being used for this
over thirty billion dollars a year is what is been
pushed for, and we have found that the evidence is
really weak and mostly contrary to the claims of these organizations,
and the written on investment claims are frankly ridiculous, as

(01:16:07):
you'll see if you read the repair reports. So that
individualism paper was it was interesting because during COVID people
were claiming and there's a paper that came out in Nature.
I think that claim that to show that people actually

(01:16:29):
died more of COVID if there is an individualist basis
of society compared to a collectivist If you read the paper,
actually their own evidence is quite the opposite. But that's
what the paper found. Is written by a group of
Chinese researchers, and so you know they would be probably

(01:16:51):
in trouble anyway if they said that an individualist approach
was best. But it's interesting because it was quoted then
by WHO and by the Global Pandemic Modern Board, which
is a group of individuals sponsored by WHO in the

(01:17:11):
World Bank, etc. As evidence that we should make centralized
decisions and tell people what to do rather than letting
them make their own decisions. It's the antithesis of democracy
and human rights. But it's also the findings are not
supported by the evidence, and they saw paper that they quote.

(01:17:32):
So purpose of our paper is just to point this out,
because it's you write a paper, you put in something
like nature or answer like that hydroxychlorican paper are mentioned,
and even if you search show it's false, most people
won't ever know that. They'll just see the paper is
published in a journal that they thought was reliable, and

(01:17:57):
therefore they assume that it must be right.

Speaker 2 (01:18:01):
To conclude. I'm going to quote you a short paragraph
from that very article because it appeals to me so much.
The opposite of authoritarian or fascist ideologies is individualism, which
is a mainstay in the history of political thought, where
the sanctity of human beings as being ends in themselves

(01:18:24):
requires a profound metaphysical commitment to human dignity, autonomy, freedom,
and moral worth. And he's the important part. Without valuing individualism,
informed choice is meaningless.

Speaker 3 (01:18:39):
I think.

Speaker 2 (01:18:40):
I think that summarizes the point better than I've ever
read before.

Speaker 3 (01:18:46):
Thanks, And the point is for a public health physician,
it is you have to suppress your ego and all
this because what it's saying is that even if you
think a person's making a big mistake, that's their right,
and you have no right to stop them as long

(01:19:07):
as you're Your role is to inform them so that
they can make informed decisions. But were all, in the
end make our own decisions, and as long as it's
not directly inflicting harm on another person, which is a
criminal offense, then we're free to make them in any

(01:19:31):
decent society, because no, we're not slaves. No one has
the right to stop us. So this is the basis
of modern public health. We've lost a lot of it
during COVID. We've lost a lot of it in the
direction that global health is going now, but it's supposed
to be what we're all about.

Speaker 2 (01:19:52):
Indeed, David, it's been great and I can only thank you,
and so will a lot of other people, and I
look forward to whenever it might be the next conversation
that we have.

Speaker 3 (01:20:06):
Yeah, thanks Dane, so do I and more.

Speaker 2 (01:20:09):
More power to you and and to Ramish and to.

Speaker 3 (01:20:15):
To includes public health physicians, lawyers, philosophers and economists and
so on from Europe, Africa, Asia, North America, South America.
So the panel was not remission iod coach he is,
but it was a panel of equals from diverse geographical

(01:20:37):
settings who all had a lot of experience in the
background of the report.

Speaker 2 (01:20:44):
I actually should have said to you and to Ramesh
for the work that you've done. Two representatives from from
the you know, the Anzac countries. Is really what I'm saying.
It's great that you're it's great that you're doing it.
So until next time, enjoy yourself and we'll talk later.

Speaker 3 (01:21:06):
Well. Thanks.

Speaker 2 (01:21:07):
So I went to the mailroom with Missus producer for
podcast number three hundred and twenty seven. I can only
say that the reaction to Rodney Hyde last week has

(01:21:29):
been well, somewhat outstanding, but there's a variation of seams.
Why don't I lead the charge? Michael writes, great chat
with Rodney. I'm a big fan of Carl Popper at
a protege of his. David Deutsch, an Oxford physicist who
does who does some good youtubes on all manner of

(01:21:49):
quantum physics to the free world and democracy. Deutsche's analogy
of democracy is that it's the only form of government
so far where people can change their leaders without violence,
i e. They can vote them out. We witness the
pain of Russian citizens who still cannot get rid of
their destatives. Rodney is a rare beast in that he

(01:22:12):
has an understanding of the fundamental principles of the universe,
that is physics. Most political figures and commentators are not
aversed in these disciplines.

Speaker 3 (01:22:23):
Keep up the good work.

Speaker 2 (01:22:24):
The battle for our freedom is far from over, and
you are more right than you realize that, Michael, Thank you.

Speaker 4 (01:22:32):
Laydon Noel says interesting to listen to Rodney's perspective on things.
I have been a fan of his since the days
when he had a column in the NBR, but have
still not forgiven him for advancing the so called supercity.
I don't think he's ever acknowledged the error of his ways.
Despite the latest outrage where residents on the North Shore

(01:22:53):
and Rodney will be forced to pay way more than
their fair share towards the CURL impost, Simon Watts could
at the very least make an amendment to the Local
Bodies Act so the record breaking seven point nine percent
on average becomes a flat charge for everyone. Many of
us northerners will never gain any benefit from CRL, but

(01:23:17):
to have to pay more towards it than someone who
may regularly benefit is outrageous. The average increase calculation is
based on the average CV of just over a million.
If you have a three million dollar CV, Council shows
your increase will be eight point five percent. Simon Watts
hasn't answered my email about this or the suggestion to

(01:23:40):
convert it to a flat.

Speaker 2 (01:23:41):
Charge the counter to that, and I'm exposing myself here
with my lack of knowledge on this because I don't
recall when they built the Northern Busway who paid for
It's that's that's my question. Kerry from New ORMs is

(01:24:02):
this latent? Sorry for the large format. I don't worry
about the format. It's big it's very pale, though I
must say Rodney should read Hatchard report. I thoroughly enjoyed
Rodney again. Like fine wine, he improves over time. At
the launch of ACT and MMP Voting in New Zealand,
I was the Whyackery Electric chairman. I didn't know that

(01:24:23):
because he's a Louisiana but he lived here for a
number of years. Most of you probably have realized by now. Anyway,
let me try again. At the launch of ACT and
MMP Voting in New Zealand, I was the why Tackery
Electric chairman and had opportunity to rub shoulders with Rodney, Muriel,
Richard P. Roger d and others. I'm sure none would

(01:24:47):
remember me, but it was heady times, historic New Zealand times.
Child to you and Carolyn from Kerry pickeryun.

Speaker 4 (01:24:56):
Interesting laden you talk about heady political times back in
the day, because I've just come home with Barry Soaper's book.
It's fabulous for Barry. Because I went into two wet calls.
The first one was sold out. They said this book's
been very popular. Second Whik Calls I went to they
did have some and the man at the tell said,
this book's been very popular, so I can't wait to

(01:25:17):
get into it.

Speaker 3 (01:25:18):
It's the bigger one. Yes, yes it's.

Speaker 4 (01:25:22):
Me, isn't it? And Layton, this is from Brett and
this is on Rodney Hyde. I take issue with this,
He says, way too soon to have to listen to
this idiot's dribble again. Can't you offload them to Radio Rema? Brett?
What are you Thinking's not?

Speaker 2 (01:25:37):
I don't think that Radio Reema still exists, does it?
I have no idea. But actually, Brett, your one failing
is you made an accusation without any.

Speaker 4 (01:25:47):
Sort of basis.

Speaker 2 (01:25:50):
So if you care to reapproach it and give us
some reasons, then I'll quote those.

Speaker 3 (01:25:56):
Layton.

Speaker 2 (01:25:56):
Always enjoy your guests, writes Neil. I thought Rodney Hyde
was so good because he agreed with me on everything
one way put it. But he also shared great historical
and philosophical insights to our world's current state and the
glorious future which I have not realized. Thus, instead of

(01:26:18):
being pessimistic today, I have seen hope. Thanks regards Neil
and Neil from Wanaka or you guys are neighbors pretty much?

Speaker 4 (01:26:27):
Laton, this is from another bread. There was a mention
and correspondence of appointment of Iran to one of the
UN councils. I have no idea of the appointment myself.
It's the first I've heard of it. However, the UN
has a history of such appointments that defy logic and reason.
The UN as an organization is corrupt, and therefore many

(01:26:49):
of its actions are a reflection of that. The UN
as an organization is corrupt, and therefore many of its
actions are a reflection of the fact. As with so
many of these things, UN started its life with good
intentions and over time has become infected, an infection. You
have followed through through the years with increasing concern, reading

(01:27:10):
the fine print as you do, and he's talking about you.
I thank you for alerting us over the years about
some of the UN's activities, ambitions, and global reach. New
Zealand has been caught in its tragic snare. Like so
many other countries, these issues are wide. Is so important
not to give one's power over to others. There are

(01:27:31):
consequences when we stop thinking and doing for ourselves. The
same applies here for New Zealand as a country. You
can compile a list of examples if you wish. I
will simply say the un has had a hand in
New Zealand's misfortune for quite a long time. Seize the day,
enjoy and I think he's talking to you now late

(01:27:52):
and seize the day, Enjoy life, empower one's own life,
and continue to bring light to others. You are a
brave and thought provoking soul. Thank goodness you never ran
for Parliament, an institution you would be ill suited for.
I'll say your value lies and challenge others to think,
even if we may disagree with you at times or
your guests, and you remain true to yourself. You are

(01:28:14):
of good heart and an inspiring New Zealander.

Speaker 2 (01:28:19):
And from Tim as usual another banger as our colonizing
cousins from England say of a podcast three twenty six
for us, it was great to hear the usual sense
of Roddy Hyde and the revelation for me. He says
for him that he listens to some of the same
people and podcasts that I do, e g. Victor Davis Hanson.

(01:28:43):
It was also great to hear someone other than me
is an unapologetic supporter of President Trump and what he
is trying to achieve. Trump isn't perfect, but who is.
I'm frightened and astonished by the amount of so called
informed people, a number of so called informed people who
would have voted for Harris and Wals Walts, Wals whatever

(01:29:04):
he is, he stupid at the twenty twenty four US
elections because they weren't Trump. Trump arrangement syndrome is the
pandemic of the mid twenty twenties, driven by the same
propaganda machine as the COVID pandemic. Too many people can't
break from their habit of getting their news, which is
actually opinion and propaganda from the legacy media. In my opinion, Radio,

(01:29:28):
New Zealand, TV and Z's Stuff, and to a lesser extent,
the New Zealand Herald are not reporting. They're offering opinions
from under educated talking heads as facts as they regurgitate
anti West nonsense from the likes of the New York Times,
of Washington Post and Guardian, etc. How many years have
I've been saying that New Zealand and the rest of

(01:29:51):
the Western world has fallen into the trap of being
governed by the expert and laptop tablet lanyard class. Too
many of our members of Parliament on the so called
right are not conviction. Politicians, I say, on the right
as the left, are generally un apologetic for their desire
to turn us into a socialist utopia. Many on the

(01:30:13):
right are not there because they believe in something and
have a desire to serve and give back to their community.
They're there because they want to be an MP. As
recently as fifty years ago, our national and local politicians
were there to give back. Now it's become a career
where politicians won't push back at the managers who run

(01:30:35):
the country. I could go on, but it would be
a book. We'll get on with it. I think it'd
be a good one to read. Give up your interesting
and thought provoking podcasts regards to him and the last.

Speaker 4 (01:30:47):
One I've got today, Leighton says, Rodney Hyde is one
of the few that I can honestly say gets more
interesting as time goes on. An enjoyable interview and as
is the case with so many of your guests, food
for thoughts.

Speaker 2 (01:31:01):
Thank you, and we've got some that will utilize next week.
But that'll do for today. Thanks thank you, missus producer.

(01:31:31):
There was a different way of getting out of this
podcast for this once only let me Winge Gus is up.
These are all in front of me at the moment.

Speaker 3 (01:31:41):
Gus.

Speaker 2 (01:31:42):
The price is up, the water's up, the electricity is up.
The rates just went up. I just pulled the new
rating system or the new rates off the email. They're up.
So maybe I should have more sympathy with the guy
who was talking about the new toy train in Auckland
Central and who's paying for it. People on the north

(01:32:02):
Shore shouldn't be contributing. Maybe I'll just alter my opinion
a bit. I'm looking at it also. I'm looking at
a and Electricity Markets and Engineering Realities report or do
electricity markets put the cart before the horse? Now we
might take a good look at that next week with
the with the author must be something else. So having
got that off my chest, I think I can say

(01:32:25):
this is where we depart for a few days, at
least until the next time. If you'd like to write
to us later and at News Talks ab dot co
dot Nz or Carolyn at Newstalks at the dot Co
dot Nz. Great bunch of mail this week, keep it
coming and I'll conclude with them saying thank you for
listening and we shall talk soon.

Speaker 3 (01:32:47):
That was different.

Speaker 1 (01:32:56):
Thank you for more from Newstalks ed B. Listen live
on air or online, and keep our shows with you
wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio

All Episodes

Leighton Smith Podcast #327 - May 6th 2026 - David Bell

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Bleep! with Ana Navarro

Hey Jonas!

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Leighton Smith Podcast #327 - May 6th 2026 - David Bell