January 14, 2025 • 60 mins
Leighton is on summer break, so we are highlighting some of his favourite guests from 2024.
Dr Paul Marik belongs to a group of physicians who have devoted their lives to their patients survival, and effectively been punished for it.
How can a man with a reputation as the “most published and influential clinician and researcher in critical care medicine in the United States" be forced from his career?
File your comments and complaints at Leighton@newstalkzb.co.nz
Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide.
Listen here on iHeartRadio
Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:
To subscribe via iTunes click here
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from news talks It b
follow this and our wide range of podcast now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of the now the Leyton
Smith Podcast powered by news talks It.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Be Welcome to the best of the Laton Smith Podcast
for the fifteenth of January. I've got to get used
to this. Twenty twenty five an interview today that was
enormously popular with many many people in this country Doctor
Paul Merrick, who was one of the frontline doctors in
(00:48):
the war against the way that COVID was being handled.
Doctor Paul Merrick belongs to a group of physicians who
have devoted their lives to their patient's survival, had effectively
been punished for it. Disgustingly say, how can a man
with a reputation as the most published and influential clinician
(01:08):
and researcher in critical care medicine in the United States
be forced from his career. Not only that, a book
that Paul Merrick had published was banned by Amazon over
a period I think of about four years. The book
is called Cancer Care, and I found out from Paul
Merrick only recently that the book has now been reinstated
(01:35):
on Amazon and you can buy it from Amazon Australia
at at a very reasonable price. I think it's thirteen
dollars something from Amazon in Australian dollars, and of course
you have to ship it over, but you know, you
get it here for about twenty bucks. So anybody who
wants it, it's now available, which shows you the turn
(01:56):
of the tire, doesn't it when it was banned because
well it was being trashed. Now it's not trashed anymore
for obvious reasons. Let me quote you something from from Amazon.
This is a review of the published literature showing options
for repurpose drugs that can be used in cancer treatment.
(02:18):
It is not intended as a standalone guide to treating cancer.
The goal is to provide a well researched clearing house
of information that picks up where traditional cancer therapies leave off.
Providers caring for cancer patients can use this information to
think creatively about readily available interventions with science to back
(02:39):
up their efficacy that could improve their patient's outcome. The
second edition of Cancer Care expands on the concepts of
the first edition, so with that we shall hear from
doctor Paul Merrick, and we discussed other matters as well,
by the way, but we'll get to Paul Merrick right
after a short break. Latam Smith Leverrix is an antihistamine
(03:14):
made in Switzerland to the highest quality. Leverix relieves hay
fever in skin, allergies or itchy skin. It's a dual
action antihistamine and has a unique nasal decongestent action. It's
fast acting for fast relief and it works in under
an hour and lasts for over twenty four hours. Leverrix
(03:35):
is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose, deals with
itchy eyes, and stops sneezing. Lebrix is an antihistamine made
in Switzerland to the highest quantity. So next time you're
in need of an effective antihistamine, call into the pharmacy
and ask for Leverrix lv Rix levrix and always read
(03:56):
the label. Take as directed, and if symptoms persist, see
your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland. There is a book
that came out in nineteen eighty two whi's called Betrayers
of the Truth, Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of science.
(04:17):
Nicholas Wade is a journalist with the New York Times.
He was one of the co authors, and it's the
sort of book that the New York Times, quite frankly
these days, wouldn't want to be associated with. In my opinion,
I want to quote you from the back. Betrayers of
the Truth is an important book for it challenges the
conventional wisdom of objectivity in science. It is not an
(04:40):
indictment of all scientists, but rather a thoughtful, well written,
and well documented analysis of how fraud and self delusion
can occur in a system which too often is claimed
to be immune to such deviations. I commend it to
all readers. Now, the author of that quote was doctor
Robert H. Ebert, former dean Harvard Medical School. Now, with
(05:04):
the reputation that Harvard has at the moment, which is
pretty near the bottom of a pit that's unlikely to
come out of anybody from Harvard, that to me gives
the opinion more weight. Anyway, It's a very good book
that you can get on the second hand book market.
Still Now, off the back of that Washington Post published
August fourteen, the American Board of Internal Medicine revoked the
(05:27):
certifications of Pierre Cory and Paul Merrick, two physicians known
for continuing to promote ibermectin and anti parasitic medication as
a treatment for COVID long after the medical community found
it to be ineffective. The two men co founded the
Frontline COVID nineteen Critical Care Alliance, which experts say spread
(05:50):
misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic. Now you know that my
opinion on experts these days has changed dramatically from what
it was a few years ago. I'm sick to death
of the word experts. The aforementioned Dr Paul Merrick is
in the country at the moment.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
He is.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
He is doing a speaking tour with another doctor specifically
and more people. And it's my great pleasure to welcome
doctor Paul Merrick to the Latensmith podcast. Welcome to New Zealand. Also,
by the way, I know you've only been here a
couple of days.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
Thank you kindly.
Speaker 4 (06:26):
It's an honor and apprivileged to be on the radio
show with you.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
Just referring to that last little little quote I read
from the Washington Post about you losing your license. That's
not quite accurate, I know, because your license particularly the
Virginia license, which was where you were mostly expired in
twenty twenty two. But the fact that they're still chasing you,
(06:54):
they're still hunting you down, not just you, not just
Pierre Cory, but probably a countless number of, shall we say,
most proficient doctors in America are the subject of a
similar activity. What do you say to that, now, Yeah,
so you absolutely write that they revoked our board certification.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
Because we were accused of spreading misinformation, and we are
misinformationists and the reality is.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
We're just trying to tell the truth.
Speaker 4 (07:31):
And science is not finite, it's not decided. It's an
ongoing process, and you should be able to have a dialogue,
free dialogue. And once you sensor science, you decapitate science.
And so you absolutely correct, they're going after Pierre and myself.
(07:51):
And you may not know this, but I wrote a
book called a Cancer Care Repurposed Drugs for the treatment
of cancer, and the day before I actually came to
New Zealand, the book was banned by Amazon. So Amazon
was selling the book, they had been selling it for
over a year, and then I got an email saying that,
(08:13):
you know, the information that I was providing was not truthful,
was misleading, and that that banning my book and that
I'm being banned for life. And all I was doing
really was quoting peer reviewed literature, you.
Speaker 3 (08:29):
Know, as not as if I was making this stuff up.
Speaker 4 (08:32):
You know, the book has over eight hundred and sixty
peer reviewed references and everything is peer reviewed. So there
is an assault if you go against the narrative, if
you if you dissent in any way. It's what they do,
whoever that they is. And it's very disturbing because you know,
(08:56):
we should be able to in the same way as
we're having a conversation.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
Now.
Speaker 4 (08:59):
We may not agree with each other, but at least
we can have a professional, courteous discussion. And that's what
science and what life is about. And they don't like that.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Now, is it possible that you can appeal against that?
Speaker 3 (09:17):
So we are yes.
Speaker 4 (09:18):
I mean, I think many people are outraged because it's
completely unprecedented in publishing history, because there are books that
they sell that are for you know, for more, for
less scientific, that provide information which is not truly accurate.
And this is being sold by Amazon. So we feel
(09:40):
that they're specifically targeting me and targeting the book because
you don't really strongly challenge, very strongly challenged the status quo,
and that's what they don't like, particularly the financial implications.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
So in the.
Speaker 4 (09:56):
US, cancer care is a two hundred billion plus industry,
and so we are providing, you know, alternatives which can
be used adjunctively or in dependently to promote people's health,
to prevent cancer, and as a junct of therapy to
(10:16):
treat cancer. And obviously this goes against the narrative and
it goes against mainstream medicine.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
You know, I have just checked with Amazon Australia because
I've had a previous experience where the book was no
longer available than America, but I could get it from
Amazon Australia. What I've got is currently unavailable. We don't
know when or if this item will be back in stock.
So there's the answer. I would like to arrange with
(10:47):
you somehow that I get a copy of that.
Speaker 4 (10:50):
Yeah, so obviously the book's no longer available, and so
the email they sent me made it quite clear that
the book has discontinued. My accounts discontinued and I've been discontinued.
So the book you can't get from Amazon. We obviously
are working out alternatives. But I can most certainly send
(11:10):
you a PDF of the book for you to read.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
That would be very useful. Now, I did know that
you'd published that book because I've I've done a little
bit of a little bit of background. But what I
don't understand is how they can justify the comments that
they made to you based on the on the statistics
that you produced and the effect that it had on
(11:36):
patients at East Virginia Medical School where you were in
those early days. What has followed on from that, sorry,
after you left EVMS, what has followed on as far
as that hospital is concerned.
Speaker 4 (11:51):
Yes, that's a good question that they that continued along
their merry way as if I was never there. So,
I mean, the way this all started, if you remember,
is in March of twenty twenty, the NIH, the CDC,
the who said, you know, there's no specific treatment for COVID,
(12:12):
you just stayed at home until you got blue. And
any physician will tell you that's completely ridiculous. A physician
is not going to just watch a secrepatient and do nothing.
So that's what was the impetus for, you know, Dr
Corey and myself and some other colleagues to put together
the FLCCC and the protocols, and so that's what we did,
(12:33):
and it was based on the best available science. You know,
we looked, we understood the disease, we understood the science,
and we basically put.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
Together a protocol.
Speaker 4 (12:44):
You know, initially we recommended corticost steroids, and we were
severely reprimanded. People said it was unethical to use cordico
steroids for a viral illness. But lo and behold, six
months later, the recovery study came out showing that critical
steroids were life saving. We used anticoagulants happened, which was
(13:07):
subsolutely they've proven to be correct.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
And then obviously we realized.
Speaker 4 (13:13):
That the best way to control the pandemic was early treatment.
And I think that remains as valid today as it
was then. Is there's no disease that benefits from waiting
until the patient progresses to the point they need to
go to a hospital.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
It's an absurdity.
Speaker 4 (13:32):
So we put together an early treatment protocol, and as
it so happens, they're about twenty or twenty five pharmaceutical
or nutraceutical drugs that have been shown to be highly
effective for the early treatment of COVID, including hydroxychloroqin and overmectin.
(13:53):
So that's how we got into this. But you know,
the hospital I was that basically much like Amazon banned me,
they banned my protocol, which was highly successful. You know,
we looked at my data versus inians data, and the
data suggested we could reduce the risk of hospital death
(14:13):
by at least fifty percent. But that was inconvenient because
I was not using the WHO and H protocols. So
you know, what I've come to discover is that this
is not about doing what's best for the patient. This
is not about optimizing patient outcome.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
This is not about helping people.
Speaker 4 (14:36):
This is about conplex of interest, financial interests, and power plays.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
Can you recall the off the top of your head
what your results were when you first were active with
hospital patients.
Speaker 4 (14:53):
Yeah, so you know, it's been debated and Corey and
myself were actually accused of false, falsifying data, and scientific
misconduct because we published the data. So we know that
the hospital mortality COVID was around twenty percent, we published
data showing that it was in our hands eight percent,
(15:16):
and that eight percent was data I received from the
chief medical officer. He personally gave me the data and
told me that it was about eight percent, and that's
what we published in our paper. So that's a significant reduction.
What they then did after the fact is accused us
of scientific misconduct because they were able to show that
(15:36):
with time the mortality went up to about ten percent.
And obviously if you followed patients for long enough, some
of them will die. But we looked at twenty eight
day mortality, and so based on the complaints of the
hospital and the hospital system, the journal retracted and removed
the paper, accusing us of scientific misconduct. And so even
(16:01):
if one takes a conservative reduction, they claimed it was
ten percent. We know the hospital tonality was about twenty percent,
so at least we were able to show that there
was at least a of the thirty percent reduction in
the risk of death. But that was very inconvenient for them.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
Indeed, after the pandemic struck, doctor Merrick wrote to the WHO,
doctor Fauci, the head of the NIH, the head of
New York City's Department of Health, and the health minister
in Lombardy in Italy about his new repurposed drug COVID
protocol pre ivermectin involving vitamin C, kurserin, zinc, and melatonin.
(16:52):
He explained that lives could be saved by offering this
to patients immediately. Doctor Merrick wrote in his letter, doctor
Fauci and others are promoting the idea of performing randomized
control tests. I believe that is unethical. I believe it's
uneth to do such trials. How can you offer patients
a placebo when testing a drug that you believe may
(17:14):
have clinical efficacy. Every patient needs to get the best
treatment that we can offer. We could expect no less
from our loved ones. Furthermore, once these trials are eventually completed,
we will all be dead or the pandemic will be over.
This does not mean that we should not be studying
the impact of these interventions. Detailed observational studies can provide
(17:36):
useful information. What did you get back from the expert,
doctor Varci?
Speaker 3 (17:43):
Yes, so please?
Speaker 4 (17:44):
You quoted that because I had forgotten that letter. We
had sent that same letter to hundreds of people, you know,
healthcare administrators, head of state, the WHO, and we did
not get a single response, not a single response.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
And you know, obviously.
Speaker 4 (18:03):
I'm pretty impressed with what we wrote that because it
holds the same position there and as it does now,
the idea of doing a randomized study when when when
you actually have an effective therapy, goes against the whole
hypocratic principle. And so you know, for example, you know,
we developed a protocol for using vitamin C for sepsis,
(18:28):
and we consider doing a randomized study, but my nurses
refused because they with their own eyes, they could see
how effective vitamin C was for treating early sepsis, and
they said, it's unethical. How can you randomize a patient
to get placebo when you know the drug you're giving
is effective. And that's essentially what they were trying to do,
(18:52):
is that, as I said, as a clinician, you give
the patient. Your your only interest is the patient in
front of you, and you have to do what you
think is in the patient's best interests, and you know,
to randomize them to the CIBO is completely unethical, and
you're right. At the beginning, we were we were convinced that,
(19:14):
you know, and the data has borne out that for
certain vitamin C, zinc and vitamin D are really highly
effective in preventing and treating COVID. You know, instead of
You know, I if the health agencies were ready concerned
about the health of the elderly people in elderly homes,
(19:37):
the probably the most important intervention would have been just
to give the vitamin D, just because we know vitamin
D has such potent immunological properties, and we know if
you have a good vitamin D level, your chances of
dying or getting ready sick for COVID already close to zero.
So what they should have just done, it's so cheap,
(19:59):
so effective, is just given these people vitamin D. But
again it went against the consensus, and nobody makes money.
You know, the D is a over the counter generic drug.
It's exceedingly cheap that one makes money from describing vitamin D.
And there's no question in my mind if we had
(20:21):
gone on a campaign of promoting vitamin D, the mortality
from COVID would have been significantly less.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
What about vitamin C. I would have thought that vitamin
C would have been at the forefront of the medical
professions interest.
Speaker 4 (20:40):
Yeah, so, you know what people don't recognize is that
there are only two species on this planet that don't
make vitamin C when you stressed. So humans and guinea
pigs are the only species that don't make vitamin.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
C, aren't they one and the same human beings?
Speaker 4 (20:57):
And yeah, sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference between
a guinea pig and a human and that's a good one.
But you know, just from a genetic and evolutionary point
of view, we know humans just don't make vitamin C
when they stressed. And vitamin C is more of a
(21:18):
stress hormone than it is a vitamin and plays a
really important role in the stress response.
Speaker 3 (21:25):
So it doesn't really matter what the stress is.
Speaker 4 (21:28):
It could be psychological stress, it could be psychiatric stress.
It could be stressed because you writing exams that you
need to produce vitamin C. And obviously if you're having
surgery or have had trauma, you can't produce vitamin C.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
Vitamin C is.
Speaker 4 (21:47):
Really important, and so that's why, you know, we would
suggest any you know, if you're healthy and you eat
a regular diet, you should get enough vitamin C. But
if you stress, if you're under a stress situation, most
definitely you should supplement worth vitamin C.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
I want to ask you a question. Well, I've got
a couple of questions. Actually they fit together. What's the
greatest challenge, threat or problem that confronts science, medical science
in particular, as that's what we're talking about. Can I
make a suggestion that it's politics.
Speaker 4 (22:26):
Yeah, so you ask a really good question, and it's
really unfortunate.
Speaker 3 (22:30):
Unfortunately science has been.
Speaker 4 (22:32):
Co opted by other forces politics, finance, power, and so
you know, just just the fact that we're being censored
is really a significant attraction of what science should be.
You know, we don't have to agree. Science is evolving,
(22:55):
it changes. I mean we know that you know, people
did blood letting and leaches and all kinds of therapies
based on what they at that time, you know, thought
was the best therapy. But science progress is, it's evolving,
and so we need to be able to have differences
of opinion, We need to explore different options. And certainly,
(23:18):
once politics gets intertwined in science, it can only pervert science.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
So my other question is your opinion of Scientific American.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
You mean the journal Scientific American.
Speaker 4 (23:37):
So you know, I can look at my life at
pre COVID and post COVID, you know, bc AC, and
I can say that BC I used to believe almost
everything that came from the medical journals New England Journal
Lands at Scientific America, because that's what we were led
(23:58):
to believe. These people have no vested interests, there's no
conflict of interest, and that the science is true. I've
subsequently discovered that at least eighty five, maybe ninety percent
of published papers of fraudulent, deceptive, dishonest. And that's very,
very disturbing, because if you can't trust these organizations and
(24:24):
these journals, who can you trust? And so I think
people have to, you know, general public, but particularly doctors
and scientists have to be scrupulous in reviewing papers and
understanding that there may be significant amount of fraud that
has been perpetuated.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
The reason I asked you that is because less than
an hour ago I got an email that Scientific American
has endorsed Kamala Harris. Now, the reason for that, or
the reasons for that, are fairly obvious. It appears to
me that Scientific American has deserted its platform and is
(25:06):
now engaged in a in a shall we say, a campaign,
a war, call it whatever you like, along with other experts,
and it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit the role any
longer of one to be trusted. The editorial drew sharp
contrasts between Harris and Donald Trump, who they described as
(25:29):
one who quote endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence,
preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy theories. Now, when I read that,
I thought immediately of droxachloroquin. I also express concern over
Trump's dangerous and disasters record, and particularly his handling of
public health during the COVID nineteen pandemic and his rollback
(25:52):
of environmental protections. If you're interested, a couple of comments
from other people, one being doctor Jordan Peterson an utterly
predictable and worse boring revelation from the pathetic and self
destructive woke mob that captured the magazine that captured the
journal and doctor Gad sad authoritarian leftist partisanship has hijacked
(26:19):
everything academia, science, journalism, medicine, business, law, entertainment, culture, justice system, etc.
So he's an evolutionary behavior scientist for anyone who doesn't know. So,
I've had no faith in those magazines for some time.
Now there's even less reason to have any sort of
(26:40):
faith in them.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
Yeah, So I wasn't aware of this development.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
Later, No, it just happened. It's just happened. That's why
I thought i'd break the news to you.
Speaker 4 (26:49):
Yeah, I think it's shocking. I think it's highly disturbing.
There's no question of doubt that medical journals and medical
publications should be completely nonpartisan. They should not be involved
in political dabbling and in quoting or misquoting politicians. Science
(27:10):
is not political. It doesn't matter if you left or right.
Was interested is the scientific truth. And once journals start
dabbling in politics, we go down a very dark road which.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
We have traveled in this country, and of course you're
aware of it. With the previous prime minister and we
were one of the shall we say, worst affected countries
in the world over matters of lockdown.
Speaker 4 (27:39):
Yeah, so you know what, as I said before, we
did either divide my life BC and AC and unfortunately,
and I don't think many people appreciate the extent of
the lines that we were told. And so the absurdity
is that doctor Correa, myself are quote it has been misinformationist,
(28:04):
but we're in fact telling the truth. And when you
actually look at the truth everything told us like everything
was a lie and was predetermined, you can say, you know,
where did the virus come from? This wasn't from nature.
You can look at the use of masks. We know
that there was a complete and outher failure. It's been
well established a COVID spreads by aerosol, not by droplets
(28:28):
spread and this has been well defined scientifically. We knew
this in twenty twenty. And if you reckon that it's
spread by aerosols, then it makes masks completely ineffective, It
makes social distancing ineffective, it makes lockdowns completely ineffective. So
(28:50):
what they did was they instituted, were not just instituted
mandated policies that were not based on good science. And
as we know, the consequences have been enormous, particularly in
places like Australia and New Zealand and Canada where you know,
the these draconian measures were enforced with almost military like activity.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
I what to make mention in passing of doctor Linus Pauling,
and I quote from an artic written by justice not
legal justice, justice j U S. T us Hope m D.
He refers to the the IV Vitamin C protocol that
you that you have. How would you put it just
(29:38):
not discovered? What would you say?
Speaker 3 (29:41):
Yeah, we reinvented it, you know what I mean?
Speaker 4 (29:43):
So it's very unusual for someone to invent something is
often just history repeating itself. So you know, we put
this protocol together based on you know, his work as
well as other people's work, and you know, we showed
to be highly effective.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
So dtor pauling, Well, I'll just I'll just back up
a little bit referring to you, Doctor Merrick has enjoyed
his reputation as the most published and influential clinician researcher
in critical care medicine in the United States quote unquote,
and for good reason. Doctor Marek is a giant in
the academic research world, with an H index of one
(30:24):
to eleven. What is an H index?
Speaker 4 (30:27):
Yeah, so an H index is a balance between the
number of papers you've published and the number of times
the papers have been quoted.
Speaker 3 (30:37):
Because it's all very well.
Speaker 4 (30:38):
Writing a paper, but if people ignore the paper and
you know, don't quote the paper, then it's it means
it's had a low impact. So the H index is
a blend of the number of publications and the number
of times.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
It's been quoted.
Speaker 4 (30:56):
Most noble laureates have an H index of about forty
to fifty, So you know, an H index of over
one hundred year signifies pretty significant and research productivity.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
So your h index of one hundred and eleven, which
placed him in the top percentile of the world's elite
published physicians. This stunned me as I read it. After
the way that you've been dealt with. His iv vitamin
C protocol, known as HAT HAT guarded massive attention with
(31:34):
more than eleven hundred anecdotes from physicians around the world
noting similar almost miraculous results from their septic shock patients,
and then mentions your hospital recorded a drop in the
death rate of of your sepsis patients from twenty two
percent to six percent over the year after you began
using that vitamin C protocol. Now getting back to Linus Pauling,
(32:00):
he also was utilizing the same methodology. He was afflicted
with Bright's disease, the condition at age forty. He found
an unorthodox but effective way to treat himself using three
grams per day of vitamin C. However, this use of
repurposed vitamins threatened the status quo and was vehemently denounced
(32:23):
as quackery. Doctor Merrick has found himself similarly attacked by
various moneyed interests. But the point is that Linus Pauling
kept himself alive for some considerable time on that exact methodology.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
Yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 4 (32:41):
I mean, you know, he wasn't a physician, you know,
he was a basic scientist and a physicist, but he
understood the astonishing properties of vitamin C and he obviously
treated himself with vitamin C. And so the point is
that it's a vitamin C is a particularly safe a
(33:03):
drug or mineral or supplement. It's almost it's impossible to
haunt somebody with vitamin C. So you know, you compare
that with many of the common drugs that we use
that have a terrible side effect profile. So you know,
vitamin C is what the big farmer in the industrial
(33:24):
complex despises, something which is cheap, something which is safe,
which has a very favorable side effect profile, and can
be highly effective. It's exactly the kind of pharmaceutical intervention
they despise.
Speaker 2 (33:41):
So just before we move on, I know that you
sold this story. Well, I'm sure that you have told
this story so often, but I would like you to
repeat it, just briefly or otherwise as you want. When
you were in hospital, when you were working in hospital,
and you developed this so this protocol, the seventy three
year old woman who came in on death's or just
(34:06):
relate that experience for us.
Speaker 4 (34:07):
Yeah, I remember it to this day quite well. So
this was a lady in her seventies who had severe
overwhelming scepsis and as if I recall, it was from
the billary tract and she was in established septic shock.
Her heart was not functioning, she needed drugs to support
(34:28):
her blood pressure, she need a ventilator to support her lungs,
she needed that dialysis machine to control her kidney failure.
And so I knew this woman was dying from a
potentially treatable disease. So you know, I scratched my head
and I thought, you know, what can I do? You know,
(34:50):
which is what most physicians would do.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
You know, you just you got to scratch the barrel.
Speaker 4 (34:57):
And I was aware of a physician at the University
of Virginia who had been using vitamin C and I
looked up the dose that he had used, and I thought,
you know what, let me try this.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
What do I have to lose?
Speaker 4 (35:13):
So I asked the pharmacists did they have IVY vitamin C?
And indeed they did, so I said, well, you know,
could we please give this the vitamin C to this patient.
You know, she's dying, and I think it can help her. Obviously,
I had no idea what the outcome would be, you know,
I had expected that when I went home, the poor
(35:35):
lady would have passed on. And I was stunned. To
say I was stunned would be an understatement. The next
morning she was sitting up in bed, awake, alert and responsive,
and it was. It was truly one of the most
astonishing things that I had seen. And the nurses, of course,
were obviously overwhelmed with happiness and pleasure because they had
(36:01):
seen the miracle of vitamin C in action. And so obviously,
once you see something, you say, well, was it just
a flock? Was she going to get better? Or is
there is this a valid intervention. So we repeated it,
and each time we saw the same thing, and so
we knew that this was a real thing. What we did, though,
(36:24):
which is really important, is that we treated patients early.
So these are patients who came into the ICU were
really sick and they were dying the same way is
you know, as I said, you don't wait for patients
to get sicker. We gave the vitamin C immediately, upfront,
and so there have been a number of randomized trials
which have failed to replicate what we did, including a
(36:48):
study out of Australia. But what they did in this
particular study is they waited at least twenty four hours
after the patient had been admitted to hospital before they
had given the C, which makes absolutely no sense because
if you're at risk of dying, you want to intervene early.
I said before, there's no disease that benefits from a
(37:11):
delay in initiating therapy. But this was done, we think,
by design, to try and discredit vitamin C. And after that,
after that, you know, we continue to use vitamin C.
And we put together a observational study because my nurses
stought it unethical to do a randomized study. You know,
(37:34):
when you know something is effective, because the nurses could
see it, the risk of patients getting kidney failure went down,
the use of dialysis machines went down, the length of
stay in the ICU went down. So we kept on
doing this and we you know, we collected forty eight
patients and we we published the data as an observational study.
(37:57):
We used a retrospective control group and it did you know,
it did get people's attention, and we know from speaking
to clinicians that the response that we saw was very
similar to what they saw. But again, there were a
number of studies that were designed which we think we're
(38:17):
designed to fail, in which the vitamin C was given
very late, and you know in that situation it's likely
to be less effective. And I think today you know
there's still a lot of interesting vitamin C although you
know the powers that we think it's an effective therapy.
It's safe, which is really important. So at worst, what
(38:42):
you know, when people patients called me, I said, well,
you know what, what do you have to lose? All
that can happen is you can say of the patient's life,
it's exceedingly safe and it's cheap. But that goes against
you know, what the pharmaceutical industrial complex is trying to push.
Speaker 2 (39:01):
You came from South Africa and I think ninety five
ninety two.
Speaker 4 (39:05):
If I remember I left just before Part eight fell apart.
Speaker 2 (39:10):
Well, your memory on that date would be better than mine,
of course, So you moved in ninety two, you discovered
success and recognition, and now you find yourself in a
position of unemployment in what is what is your career,
what you'd prefer to be doing. How are you well?
(39:34):
First of all, do you have any regrets on moving
to America after what's happened? And how are you now
making a living?
Speaker 3 (39:44):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (39:44):
So you asked some good questions. So, you know, I
thought the move to the US was a good move.
It gave me enormous opportunities. I could achieve what I
wanted to achieve professionally. But obviously I had no idea
what was in store for me. You know, I thought,
(40:05):
if you were a scientist and you tell the truth,
that people value those characteristics. But certainly not so obviously,
you know, I'm telling the truth. And with COVID, I
lost my job, I lost my license, I lost my
hospital privileges. As you said, the American Board of Internal
(40:26):
Medicine decertified me. So basically, this system had made me unemployable,
which is, you know, which is a pity. But you
know what, I.
Speaker 2 (40:39):
Don't sound angry.
Speaker 4 (40:43):
You know what I've I missed clinical medicine because that's
what I was. I was a South African doctor who's
got enormous enjoyment and satisfaction from treating patients, you know,
direct patient contact, which I think is so important, But
I've had to kind of reinvent myself. Obviously financially it's
(41:07):
I've taken in a big hit. But you know what,
money doesn't buy everything in this world. And so I
found a new niche of trying to tell the truth
as it goes to cancer, as it goes to diabetes,
as it goes to depression, as it goes to most
chronic diseases, because basically, the healthcare system in the US anyway,
(41:31):
and I would assume in most Western countries, is a
system based on chronic disease. It's a system which promotes sickness,
it promotes the use of medications. It's a sickness system
rather than a healthcare system. And so for many of
the diseases I've mentioned, you know, what they want to
(41:53):
do is get you hooked on medication for life. And
I give you as an example. I was a type
two diabetic and I thought I would have type two
diabetes for the rest of my life and I would
be dependent on expensive pharmaceutical products. But just adopting a
number of lifestyle changes which are not very difficult, I
(42:17):
was able to cure myself of diabetes. And you know,
you can say the same thing about metabolic syndrome, depression,
many autoimmune diseases that you know, patients can empower themselves
to take control, not to trust the healthcare system. It's
a terrible thing that I'm saying, and I say this
(42:40):
with a broken heart, that the healthcare system is not
a healthcare system. It's a disease system that's designed to
keep you as sick as you can for as long
as they can, and for them to make as much
money as they can. And so I have evolved, and
so I have. You know, I'm help people and I
(43:02):
think in this role maybe I've reached more people than
I did before.
Speaker 2 (43:08):
You continue to do so. Guy Hatchett is an Englishman
who book up residents in New Zealand some considerable time back.
He is not a doctor, but he's a PhD in
an associated area. He published something on and he publishes
frequently and he's fighting a battle. But he published something
(43:30):
over this last weekend to do with New Zealand Emergency
Department data and via a Freedom of information request to
the Health Department or Health New Zealand, they were asked
for the number of people under the age of forty
presenting to emergency departments throughout New Zealand hospitals with chest
(43:53):
pain or heart issues by year, And here are some
quick figures twenty nineteen, twenty two hundred and nineteen, twenty
twenty four, four hundred and six, twenty one thirteen, one
thousand and sixty three, twenty two, twenty one thousand, four
(44:13):
hundred and sixteen, in twenty three, last year twenty thousand
and five, and so far this year, not so far
to June this year, halfway through the year it was
fourteen thousand, six hundred and thirty nine. How do those
figures affect you? What are your thoughts?
Speaker 4 (44:33):
Yeah, so, I think those figures are alarming and any
healthcare administrator or any healthcare anyone involved in healthcare should
be shocked by those data because obviously there's something that's
happened in our community that's affecting the health of young
people and their chodiovascular health. And you know, it's not
(44:57):
difficult to know what that intervention is. It certainly is
not climate change. Climate change has not caused all of
these heart attacks and chest pain. There is something that
happened in twenty one, twenty two, twenty three, and you know,
I'll let you guess or your listeners guess what it was,
(45:19):
but that intervention has directly increased the risk of cardiovascular disease,
chest pain, and sudden death.
Speaker 3 (45:28):
And it's alarming.
Speaker 4 (45:31):
And so if healthcare administrators or legislators were really interested
in healthcare of the community, they would investigate this in
significant depth and to try and figure out which, we
know what the cause is, the you know what has happened,
(45:52):
and what measures can be taken to protect these poor
people from further cardiovascular events.
Speaker 2 (45:59):
I'll get your opinion. Also on his last short paragraph,
it is so far past time to recognize past mRNA
COVID vaccine harm and the growing dangers ahead, especially as
multiple mRNA vaccines are under development and soon to be
offered to the public. Our government is planning to deregulate biotechnology,
(46:24):
rushing like a must to the flame. This has to
stop now, And you would.
Speaker 3 (46:30):
Say, yeah, I absolutely agree.
Speaker 4 (46:33):
I mean so obviously, what I was saying is that
there's very good data that these jabs, these emerin a
genetic therapy jobs are directly responsible for the massive increase
in a sudden deaths in corriovascular events through multiple different pathways.
Speaker 3 (46:53):
The spark protein is.
Speaker 4 (46:54):
Probably the most toxic protein known to the human body.
It does all kinds of really bad things. A recent
paper in Nature, which is a really reputable journal, so
you know, we're going back to the journals.
Speaker 3 (47:10):
Can you trust it?
Speaker 4 (47:11):
But it actually showed that spike protein directly binds to fibrin,
which is a clotting protein and activates clotting. So you
know that wasn't censored up until now. And so we
know that spike protein causes inflammation of the lining of
the blood vessels, it causes inflammation in cardiac blood vessels,
(47:36):
it causes damage to the heart. So this is a
this is a well documented in the literature observation, and
so it puts the community at increased risk of sudden
cardiac deaths. And we know there's been an explosion of
sudden deaths in young people, which is very, very troubling.
Speaker 2 (47:59):
How many speeches have you given so far? Just the one?
Speaker 3 (48:04):
So it us it it.
Speaker 4 (48:07):
We had an event in christ Church, I've given you know,
one lecture there, and we have an upcoming event in
Auckland and I'm going to repeat the same lecture. But
you know I've done many zoom conferences on this topic,
and you know, I will continue to tell the truth.
But you know, if people want to disagree, then that's fine.
(48:29):
We can have a civil conversation and discuss the science,
but you can't obliterate what you don't want to see.
Speaker 2 (48:38):
Any doctors turn up for your christ Church speech.
Speaker 4 (48:43):
You know. Yeah, So surprisingly, the attendance was very good.
You know, I would say fifty percent will maybe lay people,
fifty percent were physicians. And I think, you know, it's
a delight to speak to these people because you feel
that you are you're amongst your brothers and sisters, that
you like minded people, and you can talk to each other.
(49:06):
And it was very enlightening. I think it was enlightening
for me, but for the audience as well. And that's
what we need more of, is let's have open dialogue,
Let's talk to each other. Let's be civil to each other.
Rather than all these censorship and recriminations and tapers being
withdrawn and books being banned. I think that's heading in
(49:29):
a really bad direction.
Speaker 2 (49:32):
But it's hitting in that direction along with another a
number of other causes. Shall we say, of those doctors
who turned up for christ Church, did any challenge you? Seriously?
Speaker 3 (49:48):
No, I can't think of this thing.
Speaker 4 (49:49):
You know, we had many you know, after the lecture,
I spoke to many physicians and none of them could present,
you know, data which discredited what I had to say.
So I think that they were in full agreement because
if you look at the data they even the data
that's published, it's overwhelming. It's you know, it's very difficult
(50:14):
to dispute the obvious. For example, I can give you
quote one study from the Cleveland Clinic. The Cleveland Clinic
is regarded as one of the most prestigious medical institutions
in the world, and basically what they showed is the
more the increasing number of times you get jabbed, So
(50:35):
those patients who received the most number of vaccinations had
the increased risk of getting COVID. So rather than the
jab protecting you, it seemed that the more times that
they received the vaccine, the more times, the greater their
risk of getting COVID, so that the risk of COVID
(50:58):
increased with the number of jabs. I mean, it's very
compelling data.
Speaker 2 (51:05):
I want I want to raise another subject just before
we conclude, and just just get your opinion. So I
asked this as an innocent question, do you have an
opinion on statins.
Speaker 4 (51:28):
So that's a really interesting question. As I say, you know,
I have changed, as is my understanding. I used to
take a.
Speaker 3 (51:35):
Statin until I became.
Speaker 4 (51:38):
Aware of the staten hoax. It's a complete and at
a hoax that these drugs have significant side effects. In fact,
you know, what they do is to interfere with cholesterol synthesis,
and the probably the most important organ that depends on
cholesterol is the brain. The brand has a high cholesterol content,
(51:58):
and there's very good data showing that statins increase your
risk of dementia. We know statan's increase the risk of
liver disease. Statins increase the risk of muscle disease, but
do they protect and the data suggests that if for
primary prophylaxis, the use of statins has negligible impact, So
(52:23):
it increases the risk of side effects with very little
positive benefit. There may be certain subgroups of patients that
may benefit from a statin for a short time limited
trial six months, but these are not drugs that should
be given lifelong. It just so happens that a statin
(52:45):
a torv staaten, is the most commonly prescribed drug in
the United States. Of America. That's this stranglehold big farma
has on the medical system. We used to think that
statins were effective in preventing heart disease, but we've now
discovered that the converse is true.
Speaker 2 (53:06):
When you say where would where would one find that
information confirmation?
Speaker 4 (53:13):
Yeah, there's actually a few books that have been written
called the Staaten Hoax, which I would suggest people read.
You know, obviously, the medical literature, the major medical journals
aren't going to promote this idea, but there have been
meta analyses that have been done published in peer review
journals which actually show that the mortality benefit of primary
(53:38):
profile acces with Staaten's is close to zero, close to zero,
and we do know that Statin's increased. As I said,
there is a dementia, diabetes, lever disease, muscle disease. So,
you know, the truth ready is important.
Speaker 2 (53:55):
But the eternal question is what is truth? That doesn't
require an answer?
Speaker 3 (54:03):
Yeah, so that's something.
Speaker 4 (54:05):
Yeah, I mean, you ask a really good question what
is the truth? And I think, you know, I think
people need to question everything they told to, you know,
to verify its source and to verify this scientific rigorousness,
and just to not you know, we so brainwashed. We
(54:26):
need to start thinking critically and start using our brain
rather than believing everything we told, and then hopefully we
will come to some kind of a truth.
Speaker 2 (54:38):
Indeed, So finally, Robert Malone, are you friends with him?
Speaker 3 (54:45):
I know Robert quite well.
Speaker 4 (54:48):
We acquaint I would say we acquaintances rather than good friends.
Speaker 2 (54:52):
Sometimes that's better. Yeah, he published, and by the way,
I've got I have to say this. I can't accept
that he writes everything himself. Orbit accept that he agrees
with it and may even commission it. But he publish
It's a fifty seven page because I got it here.
I printed it a great expense to myself. He published
(55:16):
only a few weeks ago, Packed for the Future, the
Socialist Manifesto fifty seven pages, and it begins September twenty
twenty four. The United Nations will be meeting in New
York to discuss and vote on three new treaties. The
first to be discussed is called the Pact for the Future.
(55:38):
I'm not going to insult you all by stating that
or what I think about this document without having presented
the treaty for all of you to pursue. Keep in
mind that this is just one of three treaties or
packs up for vote and signing at the UN end
of September. That's by way of introduction to what I've received. Again.
(55:59):
Only this morning, the UN just adopted the Packed for
the Future, which lays the foundation for a new global order.
That's what it says, a new global order. You have
any comment to make on the UN, the who and
where they're headed.
Speaker 4 (56:16):
I think it's terrifying and I think we should be
do whatever we can to speak to people in government,
speak of people in power, Speak to our legislators that
the WH and the UN need to take their fingers
out of our lives. You know, that they should not
be dictating how we live, where we live, what we eat.
(56:39):
And I think this one power government is a very
dangerous slippery slope and we should be outraged.
Speaker 2 (56:49):
And yet it hardly gets any mention, any discussion in
the mainstream media. It is something that seems to be
or seems to fit in with the general acceptance of
what is yet to come.
Speaker 3 (57:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (57:05):
Absolutely, I think it's imperative that people are aware of
where the UN and w H is going, and we
need to do whatever we can to prevent. You know,
we need to restore democracy. We need to restore human dignity,
we need to restore you know, human individuality, and we're
(57:29):
going down a terrible slippery slope.
Speaker 2 (57:32):
Well you said the not just on a path, you're
well on the on the way to shall I say,
a destination that is to be admired and you are
to be congratulated. Thank you so much for the time
you've given. Glad you made it to New Zealand, and
I hope the rest of your your journey and your
speeches are successful.
Speaker 3 (57:54):
Well, thank you kindly.
Speaker 4 (57:56):
It's been a delight speaking with you, and I've really
enjoyed it, and so thank you kindly my.
Speaker 2 (58:02):
Pleasure, and I speak on behalf of some considerable thousands
of people. Thank you so much, Paul.
Speaker 3 (58:10):
Thank you my friend.
Speaker 2 (58:29):
Now I'm doing it a little differently this year. At
the end of the replay, I usually have a few
words to say, and every year I have to struggle
to think up what the appropriate thing is to put
in this particular plot. So I've decided to give myself
a break and do one that covers all of them.
So if you've heard this before, you can turn it
(58:50):
off because you've heard it because it's going to be
the same one for each of the seven replays. Now,
if this is the first one, then I trust that
you're having a wonderful holiday. If you're not on holiday yet,
your time will come. Rest assured. I have enjoyed doing
these because read listening to them myself, I get more
(59:12):
out of them and I see things, or I should say,
I hear things that I might have got slightly wrong
or I could have done better, So it's a learning
curve as well. Anyway, we will be back for the
next one a week from this particular release, unless, of
course it's the last one, which is on the twenty
ninth of January, and that'll be the end of this
(59:35):
replay series. Add on February five, we shall return with
fresh content in the meantime at any stage, drop us
on notes if you've got comment that you'd like to
make later at Newstalks atb dot co dot Enzen and
Caroline at Newstalks ATB dot co dot Nz and we
shall talk soon.
Speaker 1 (01:00:01):
Thank you for more from News Talks at b Listen
live on air or online, and keep our shows with
you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio
You're listening to a podcast from news talks It b
follow this and our wide range of podcast now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of the now the Leyton
Smith Podcast powered by news talks It.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Be Welcome to the best of the Laton Smith Podcast
for the fifteenth of January. I've got to get used
to this. Twenty twenty five an interview today that was
enormously popular with many many people in this country Doctor
Paul Merrick, who was one of the frontline doctors in
(00:48):
the war against the way that COVID was being handled.
Doctor Paul Merrick belongs to a group of physicians who
have devoted their lives to their patient's survival, had effectively
been punished for it. Disgustingly say, how can a man
with a reputation as the most published and influential clinician
(01:08):
and researcher in critical care medicine in the United States
be forced from his career. Not only that, a book
that Paul Merrick had published was banned by Amazon over
a period I think of about four years. The book
is called Cancer Care, and I found out from Paul
Merrick only recently that the book has now been reinstated
(01:35):
on Amazon and you can buy it from Amazon Australia
at at a very reasonable price. I think it's thirteen
dollars something from Amazon in Australian dollars, and of course
you have to ship it over, but you know, you
get it here for about twenty bucks. So anybody who
wants it, it's now available, which shows you the turn
(01:56):
of the tire, doesn't it when it was banned because
well it was being trashed. Now it's not trashed anymore
for obvious reasons. Let me quote you something from from Amazon.
This is a review of the published literature showing options
for repurpose drugs that can be used in cancer treatment.
(02:18):
It is not intended as a standalone guide to treating cancer.
The goal is to provide a well researched clearing house
of information that picks up where traditional cancer therapies leave off.
Providers caring for cancer patients can use this information to
think creatively about readily available interventions with science to back
(02:39):
up their efficacy that could improve their patient's outcome. The
second edition of Cancer Care expands on the concepts of
the first edition, so with that we shall hear from
doctor Paul Merrick, and we discussed other matters as well,
by the way, but we'll get to Paul Merrick right
after a short break. Latam Smith Leverrix is an antihistamine
(03:14):
made in Switzerland to the highest quality. Leverix relieves hay
fever in skin, allergies or itchy skin. It's a dual
action antihistamine and has a unique nasal decongestent action. It's
fast acting for fast relief and it works in under
an hour and lasts for over twenty four hours. Leverrix
(03:35):
is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose, deals with
itchy eyes, and stops sneezing. Lebrix is an antihistamine made
in Switzerland to the highest quantity. So next time you're
in need of an effective antihistamine, call into the pharmacy
and ask for Leverrix lv Rix levrix and always read
(03:56):
the label. Take as directed, and if symptoms persist, see
your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland. There is a book
that came out in nineteen eighty two whi's called Betrayers
of the Truth, Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of science.
(04:17):
Nicholas Wade is a journalist with the New York Times.
He was one of the co authors, and it's the
sort of book that the New York Times, quite frankly
these days, wouldn't want to be associated with. In my opinion,
I want to quote you from the back. Betrayers of
the Truth is an important book for it challenges the
conventional wisdom of objectivity in science. It is not an
(04:40):
indictment of all scientists, but rather a thoughtful, well written,
and well documented analysis of how fraud and self delusion
can occur in a system which too often is claimed
to be immune to such deviations. I commend it to
all readers. Now, the author of that quote was doctor
Robert H. Ebert, former dean Harvard Medical School. Now, with
(05:04):
the reputation that Harvard has at the moment, which is
pretty near the bottom of a pit that's unlikely to
come out of anybody from Harvard, that to me gives
the opinion more weight. Anyway, It's a very good book
that you can get on the second hand book market.
Still Now, off the back of that Washington Post published
August fourteen, the American Board of Internal Medicine revoked the
(05:27):
certifications of Pierre Cory and Paul Merrick, two physicians known
for continuing to promote ibermectin and anti parasitic medication as
a treatment for COVID long after the medical community found
it to be ineffective. The two men co founded the
Frontline COVID nineteen Critical Care Alliance, which experts say spread
(05:50):
misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic. Now you know that my
opinion on experts these days has changed dramatically from what
it was a few years ago. I'm sick to death
of the word experts. The aforementioned Dr Paul Merrick is
in the country at the moment.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
He is.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
He is doing a speaking tour with another doctor specifically
and more people. And it's my great pleasure to welcome
doctor Paul Merrick to the Latensmith podcast. Welcome to New Zealand. Also,
by the way, I know you've only been here a
couple of days.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
Thank you kindly.
Speaker 4 (06:26):
It's an honor and apprivileged to be on the radio
show with you.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
Just referring to that last little little quote I read
from the Washington Post about you losing your license. That's
not quite accurate, I know, because your license particularly the
Virginia license, which was where you were mostly expired in
twenty twenty two. But the fact that they're still chasing you,
(06:54):
they're still hunting you down, not just you, not just
Pierre Cory, but probably a countless number of, shall we say,
most proficient doctors in America are the subject of a
similar activity. What do you say to that, now, Yeah,
so you absolutely write that they revoked our board certification.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
Because we were accused of spreading misinformation, and we are
misinformationists and the reality is.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
We're just trying to tell the truth.
Speaker 4 (07:31):
And science is not finite, it's not decided. It's an
ongoing process, and you should be able to have a dialogue,
free dialogue. And once you sensor science, you decapitate science.
And so you absolutely correct, they're going after Pierre and myself.
(07:51):
And you may not know this, but I wrote a
book called a Cancer Care Repurposed Drugs for the treatment
of cancer, and the day before I actually came to
New Zealand, the book was banned by Amazon. So Amazon
was selling the book, they had been selling it for
over a year, and then I got an email saying that,
(08:13):
you know, the information that I was providing was not truthful,
was misleading, and that that banning my book and that
I'm being banned for life. And all I was doing
really was quoting peer reviewed literature, you.
Speaker 3 (08:29):
Know, as not as if I was making this stuff up.
Speaker 4 (08:32):
You know, the book has over eight hundred and sixty
peer reviewed references and everything is peer reviewed. So there
is an assault if you go against the narrative, if
you if you dissent in any way. It's what they do,
whoever that they is. And it's very disturbing because you know,
(08:56):
we should be able to in the same way as
we're having a conversation.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
Now.
Speaker 4 (08:59):
We may not agree with each other, but at least
we can have a professional, courteous discussion. And that's what
science and what life is about. And they don't like that.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Now, is it possible that you can appeal against that?
Speaker 3 (09:17):
So we are yes.
Speaker 4 (09:18):
I mean, I think many people are outraged because it's
completely unprecedented in publishing history, because there are books that
they sell that are for you know, for more, for
less scientific, that provide information which is not truly accurate.
And this is being sold by Amazon. So we feel
(09:40):
that they're specifically targeting me and targeting the book because
you don't really strongly challenge, very strongly challenged the status quo,
and that's what they don't like, particularly the financial implications.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
So in the.
Speaker 4 (09:56):
US, cancer care is a two hundred billion plus industry,
and so we are providing, you know, alternatives which can
be used adjunctively or in dependently to promote people's health,
to prevent cancer, and as a junct of therapy to
(10:16):
treat cancer. And obviously this goes against the narrative and
it goes against mainstream medicine.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
You know, I have just checked with Amazon Australia because
I've had a previous experience where the book was no
longer available than America, but I could get it from
Amazon Australia. What I've got is currently unavailable. We don't
know when or if this item will be back in stock.
So there's the answer. I would like to arrange with
(10:47):
you somehow that I get a copy of that.
Speaker 4 (10:50):
Yeah, so obviously the book's no longer available, and so
the email they sent me made it quite clear that
the book has discontinued. My accounts discontinued and I've been discontinued.
So the book you can't get from Amazon. We obviously
are working out alternatives. But I can most certainly send
(11:10):
you a PDF of the book for you to read.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
That would be very useful. Now, I did know that
you'd published that book because I've I've done a little
bit of a little bit of background. But what I
don't understand is how they can justify the comments that
they made to you based on the on the statistics
that you produced and the effect that it had on
(11:36):
patients at East Virginia Medical School where you were in
those early days. What has followed on from that, sorry,
after you left EVMS, what has followed on as far
as that hospital is concerned.
Speaker 4 (11:51):
Yes, that's a good question that they that continued along
their merry way as if I was never there. So,
I mean, the way this all started, if you remember,
is in March of twenty twenty, the NIH, the CDC,
the who said, you know, there's no specific treatment for COVID,
(12:12):
you just stayed at home until you got blue. And
any physician will tell you that's completely ridiculous. A physician
is not going to just watch a secrepatient and do nothing.
So that's what was the impetus for, you know, Dr
Corey and myself and some other colleagues to put together
the FLCCC and the protocols, and so that's what we did,
(12:33):
and it was based on the best available science. You know,
we looked, we understood the disease, we understood the science,
and we basically put.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
Together a protocol.
Speaker 4 (12:44):
You know, initially we recommended corticost steroids, and we were
severely reprimanded. People said it was unethical to use cordico
steroids for a viral illness. But lo and behold, six
months later, the recovery study came out showing that critical
steroids were life saving. We used anticoagulants happened, which was
(13:07):
subsolutely they've proven to be correct.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
And then obviously we realized.
Speaker 4 (13:13):
That the best way to control the pandemic was early treatment.
And I think that remains as valid today as it
was then. Is there's no disease that benefits from waiting
until the patient progresses to the point they need to
go to a hospital.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
It's an absurdity.
Speaker 4 (13:32):
So we put together an early treatment protocol, and as
it so happens, they're about twenty or twenty five pharmaceutical
or nutraceutical drugs that have been shown to be highly
effective for the early treatment of COVID, including hydroxychloroqin and overmectin.
(13:53):
So that's how we got into this. But you know,
the hospital I was that basically much like Amazon banned me,
they banned my protocol, which was highly successful. You know,
we looked at my data versus inians data, and the
data suggested we could reduce the risk of hospital death
(14:13):
by at least fifty percent. But that was inconvenient because
I was not using the WHO and H protocols. So
you know, what I've come to discover is that this
is not about doing what's best for the patient. This
is not about optimizing patient outcome.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
This is not about helping people.
Speaker 4 (14:36):
This is about conplex of interest, financial interests, and power plays.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
Can you recall the off the top of your head
what your results were when you first were active with
hospital patients.
Speaker 4 (14:53):
Yeah, so you know, it's been debated and Corey and
myself were actually accused of false, falsifying data, and scientific
misconduct because we published the data. So we know that
the hospital mortality COVID was around twenty percent, we published
data showing that it was in our hands eight percent,
(15:16):
and that eight percent was data I received from the
chief medical officer. He personally gave me the data and
told me that it was about eight percent, and that's
what we published in our paper. So that's a significant reduction.
What they then did after the fact is accused us
of scientific misconduct because they were able to show that
(15:36):
with time the mortality went up to about ten percent.
And obviously if you followed patients for long enough, some
of them will die. But we looked at twenty eight
day mortality, and so based on the complaints of the
hospital and the hospital system, the journal retracted and removed
the paper, accusing us of scientific misconduct. And so even
(16:01):
if one takes a conservative reduction, they claimed it was
ten percent. We know the hospital tonality was about twenty percent,
so at least we were able to show that there
was at least a of the thirty percent reduction in
the risk of death. But that was very inconvenient for them.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
Indeed, after the pandemic struck, doctor Merrick wrote to the WHO,
doctor Fauci, the head of the NIH, the head of
New York City's Department of Health, and the health minister
in Lombardy in Italy about his new repurposed drug COVID
protocol pre ivermectin involving vitamin C, kurserin, zinc, and melatonin.
(16:52):
He explained that lives could be saved by offering this
to patients immediately. Doctor Merrick wrote in his letter, doctor
Fauci and others are promoting the idea of performing randomized
control tests. I believe that is unethical. I believe it's
uneth to do such trials. How can you offer patients
a placebo when testing a drug that you believe may
(17:14):
have clinical efficacy. Every patient needs to get the best
treatment that we can offer. We could expect no less
from our loved ones. Furthermore, once these trials are eventually completed,
we will all be dead or the pandemic will be over.
This does not mean that we should not be studying
the impact of these interventions. Detailed observational studies can provide
(17:36):
useful information. What did you get back from the expert,
doctor Varci?
Speaker 3 (17:43):
Yes, so please?
Speaker 4 (17:44):
You quoted that because I had forgotten that letter. We
had sent that same letter to hundreds of people, you know,
healthcare administrators, head of state, the WHO, and we did
not get a single response, not a single response.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
And you know, obviously.
Speaker 4 (18:03):
I'm pretty impressed with what we wrote that because it
holds the same position there and as it does now,
the idea of doing a randomized study when when when
you actually have an effective therapy, goes against the whole
hypocratic principle. And so you know, for example, you know,
we developed a protocol for using vitamin C for sepsis,
(18:28):
and we consider doing a randomized study, but my nurses
refused because they with their own eyes, they could see
how effective vitamin C was for treating early sepsis, and
they said, it's unethical. How can you randomize a patient
to get placebo when you know the drug you're giving
is effective. And that's essentially what they were trying to do,
(18:52):
is that, as I said, as a clinician, you give
the patient. Your your only interest is the patient in
front of you, and you have to do what you
think is in the patient's best interests, and you know,
to randomize them to the CIBO is completely unethical, and
you're right. At the beginning, we were we were convinced that,
(19:14):
you know, and the data has borne out that for
certain vitamin C, zinc and vitamin D are really highly
effective in preventing and treating COVID. You know, instead of
You know, I if the health agencies were ready concerned
about the health of the elderly people in elderly homes,
(19:37):
the probably the most important intervention would have been just
to give the vitamin D, just because we know vitamin
D has such potent immunological properties, and we know if
you have a good vitamin D level, your chances of
dying or getting ready sick for COVID already close to zero.
So what they should have just done, it's so cheap,
(19:59):
so effective, is just given these people vitamin D. But
again it went against the consensus, and nobody makes money.
You know, the D is a over the counter generic drug.
It's exceedingly cheap that one makes money from describing vitamin D.
And there's no question in my mind if we had
(20:21):
gone on a campaign of promoting vitamin D, the mortality
from COVID would have been significantly less.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
What about vitamin C. I would have thought that vitamin
C would have been at the forefront of the medical
professions interest.
Speaker 4 (20:40):
Yeah, so, you know what people don't recognize is that
there are only two species on this planet that don't
make vitamin C when you stressed. So humans and guinea
pigs are the only species that don't make vitamin.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
C, aren't they one and the same human beings?
Speaker 4 (20:57):
And yeah, sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference between
a guinea pig and a human and that's a good one.
But you know, just from a genetic and evolutionary point
of view, we know humans just don't make vitamin C
when they stressed. And vitamin C is more of a
(21:18):
stress hormone than it is a vitamin and plays a
really important role in the stress response.
Speaker 3 (21:25):
So it doesn't really matter what the stress is.
Speaker 4 (21:28):
It could be psychological stress, it could be psychiatric stress.
It could be stressed because you writing exams that you
need to produce vitamin C. And obviously if you're having
surgery or have had trauma, you can't produce vitamin C.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
Vitamin C is.
Speaker 4 (21:47):
Really important, and so that's why, you know, we would
suggest any you know, if you're healthy and you eat
a regular diet, you should get enough vitamin C. But
if you stress, if you're under a stress situation, most
definitely you should supplement worth vitamin C.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
I want to ask you a question. Well, I've got
a couple of questions. Actually they fit together. What's the
greatest challenge, threat or problem that confronts science, medical science
in particular, as that's what we're talking about. Can I
make a suggestion that it's politics.
Speaker 4 (22:26):
Yeah, so you ask a really good question, and it's
really unfortunate.
Speaker 3 (22:30):
Unfortunately science has been.
Speaker 4 (22:32):
Co opted by other forces politics, finance, power, and so
you know, just just the fact that we're being censored
is really a significant attraction of what science should be.
You know, we don't have to agree. Science is evolving,
(22:55):
it changes. I mean we know that you know, people
did blood letting and leaches and all kinds of therapies
based on what they at that time, you know, thought
was the best therapy. But science progress is, it's evolving,
and so we need to be able to have differences
of opinion, We need to explore different options. And certainly,
(23:18):
once politics gets intertwined in science, it can only pervert science.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
So my other question is your opinion of Scientific American.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
You mean the journal Scientific American.
Speaker 4 (23:37):
So you know, I can look at my life at
pre COVID and post COVID, you know, bc AC, and
I can say that BC I used to believe almost
everything that came from the medical journals New England Journal
Lands at Scientific America, because that's what we were led
(23:58):
to believe. These people have no vested interests, there's no
conflict of interest, and that the science is true. I've
subsequently discovered that at least eighty five, maybe ninety percent
of published papers of fraudulent, deceptive, dishonest. And that's very,
very disturbing, because if you can't trust these organizations and
(24:24):
these journals, who can you trust? And so I think
people have to, you know, general public, but particularly doctors
and scientists have to be scrupulous in reviewing papers and
understanding that there may be significant amount of fraud that
has been perpetuated.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
The reason I asked you that is because less than
an hour ago I got an email that Scientific American
has endorsed Kamala Harris. Now, the reason for that, or
the reasons for that, are fairly obvious. It appears to
me that Scientific American has deserted its platform and is
(25:06):
now engaged in a in a shall we say, a campaign,
a war, call it whatever you like, along with other experts,
and it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit the role any
longer of one to be trusted. The editorial drew sharp
contrasts between Harris and Donald Trump, who they described as
(25:29):
one who quote endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence,
preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy theories. Now, when I read that,
I thought immediately of droxachloroquin. I also express concern over
Trump's dangerous and disasters record, and particularly his handling of
public health during the COVID nineteen pandemic and his rollback
(25:52):
of environmental protections. If you're interested, a couple of comments
from other people, one being doctor Jordan Peterson an utterly
predictable and worse boring revelation from the pathetic and self
destructive woke mob that captured the magazine that captured the
journal and doctor Gad sad authoritarian leftist partisanship has hijacked
(26:19):
everything academia, science, journalism, medicine, business, law, entertainment, culture, justice system, etc.
So he's an evolutionary behavior scientist for anyone who doesn't know. So,
I've had no faith in those magazines for some time.
Now there's even less reason to have any sort of
(26:40):
faith in them.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
Yeah, So I wasn't aware of this development.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
Later, No, it just happened. It's just happened. That's why
I thought i'd break the news to you.
Speaker 4 (26:49):
Yeah, I think it's shocking. I think it's highly disturbing.
There's no question of doubt that medical journals and medical
publications should be completely nonpartisan. They should not be involved
in political dabbling and in quoting or misquoting politicians. Science
(27:10):
is not political. It doesn't matter if you left or right.
Was interested is the scientific truth. And once journals start
dabbling in politics, we go down a very dark road which.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
We have traveled in this country, and of course you're
aware of it. With the previous prime minister and we
were one of the shall we say, worst affected countries
in the world over matters of lockdown.
Speaker 4 (27:39):
Yeah, so you know what, as I said before, we
did either divide my life BC and AC and unfortunately,
and I don't think many people appreciate the extent of
the lines that we were told. And so the absurdity
is that doctor Correa, myself are quote it has been misinformationist,
(28:04):
but we're in fact telling the truth. And when you
actually look at the truth everything told us like everything
was a lie and was predetermined, you can say, you know,
where did the virus come from? This wasn't from nature.
You can look at the use of masks. We know
that there was a complete and outher failure. It's been
well established a COVID spreads by aerosol, not by droplets
(28:28):
spread and this has been well defined scientifically. We knew
this in twenty twenty. And if you reckon that it's
spread by aerosols, then it makes masks completely ineffective, It
makes social distancing ineffective, it makes lockdowns completely ineffective. So
(28:50):
what they did was they instituted, were not just instituted
mandated policies that were not based on good science. And
as we know, the consequences have been enormous, particularly in
places like Australia and New Zealand and Canada where you know,
the these draconian measures were enforced with almost military like activity.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
I what to make mention in passing of doctor Linus Pauling,
and I quote from an artic written by justice not
legal justice, justice j U S. T us Hope m D.
He refers to the the IV Vitamin C protocol that
you that you have. How would you put it just
(29:38):
not discovered? What would you say?
Speaker 3 (29:41):
Yeah, we reinvented it, you know what I mean?
Speaker 4 (29:43):
So it's very unusual for someone to invent something is
often just history repeating itself. So you know, we put
this protocol together based on you know, his work as
well as other people's work, and you know, we showed
to be highly effective.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
So dtor pauling, Well, I'll just I'll just back up
a little bit referring to you, Doctor Merrick has enjoyed
his reputation as the most published and influential clinician researcher
in critical care medicine in the United States quote unquote,
and for good reason. Doctor Marek is a giant in
the academic research world, with an H index of one
(30:24):
to eleven. What is an H index?
Speaker 4 (30:27):
Yeah, so an H index is a balance between the
number of papers you've published and the number of times
the papers have been quoted.
Speaker 3 (30:37):
Because it's all very well.
Speaker 4 (30:38):
Writing a paper, but if people ignore the paper and
you know, don't quote the paper, then it's it means
it's had a low impact. So the H index is
a blend of the number of publications and the number
of times.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
It's been quoted.
Speaker 4 (30:56):
Most noble laureates have an H index of about forty
to fifty, So you know, an H index of over
one hundred year signifies pretty significant and research productivity.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
So your h index of one hundred and eleven, which
placed him in the top percentile of the world's elite
published physicians. This stunned me as I read it. After
the way that you've been dealt with. His iv vitamin
C protocol, known as HAT HAT guarded massive attention with
(31:34):
more than eleven hundred anecdotes from physicians around the world
noting similar almost miraculous results from their septic shock patients,
and then mentions your hospital recorded a drop in the
death rate of of your sepsis patients from twenty two
percent to six percent over the year after you began
using that vitamin C protocol. Now getting back to Linus Pauling,
(32:00):
he also was utilizing the same methodology. He was afflicted
with Bright's disease, the condition at age forty. He found
an unorthodox but effective way to treat himself using three
grams per day of vitamin C. However, this use of
repurposed vitamins threatened the status quo and was vehemently denounced
(32:23):
as quackery. Doctor Merrick has found himself similarly attacked by
various moneyed interests. But the point is that Linus Pauling
kept himself alive for some considerable time on that exact methodology.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
Yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 4 (32:41):
I mean, you know, he wasn't a physician, you know,
he was a basic scientist and a physicist, but he
understood the astonishing properties of vitamin C and he obviously
treated himself with vitamin C. And so the point is
that it's a vitamin C is a particularly safe a
(33:03):
drug or mineral or supplement. It's almost it's impossible to
haunt somebody with vitamin C. So you know, you compare
that with many of the common drugs that we use
that have a terrible side effect profile. So you know,
vitamin C is what the big farmer in the industrial
(33:24):
complex despises, something which is cheap, something which is safe,
which has a very favorable side effect profile, and can
be highly effective. It's exactly the kind of pharmaceutical intervention
they despise.
Speaker 2 (33:41):
So just before we move on, I know that you
sold this story. Well, I'm sure that you have told
this story so often, but I would like you to
repeat it, just briefly or otherwise as you want. When
you were in hospital, when you were working in hospital,
and you developed this so this protocol, the seventy three
year old woman who came in on death's or just
(34:06):
relate that experience for us.
Speaker 4 (34:07):
Yeah, I remember it to this day quite well. So
this was a lady in her seventies who had severe
overwhelming scepsis and as if I recall, it was from
the billary tract and she was in established septic shock.
Her heart was not functioning, she needed drugs to support
(34:28):
her blood pressure, she need a ventilator to support her lungs,
she needed that dialysis machine to control her kidney failure.
And so I knew this woman was dying from a
potentially treatable disease. So you know, I scratched my head
and I thought, you know, what can I do? You know,
(34:50):
which is what most physicians would do.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
You know, you just you got to scratch the barrel.
Speaker 4 (34:57):
And I was aware of a physician at the University
of Virginia who had been using vitamin C and I
looked up the dose that he had used, and I thought,
you know what, let me try this.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
What do I have to lose?
Speaker 4 (35:13):
So I asked the pharmacists did they have IVY vitamin C?
And indeed they did, so I said, well, you know,
could we please give this the vitamin C to this patient.
You know, she's dying, and I think it can help her. Obviously,
I had no idea what the outcome would be, you know,
I had expected that when I went home, the poor
(35:35):
lady would have passed on. And I was stunned. To
say I was stunned would be an understatement. The next
morning she was sitting up in bed, awake, alert and responsive,
and it was. It was truly one of the most
astonishing things that I had seen. And the nurses, of course,
were obviously overwhelmed with happiness and pleasure because they had
(36:01):
seen the miracle of vitamin C in action. And so obviously,
once you see something, you say, well, was it just
a flock? Was she going to get better? Or is
there is this a valid intervention. So we repeated it,
and each time we saw the same thing, and so
we knew that this was a real thing. What we did, though,
(36:24):
which is really important, is that we treated patients early.
So these are patients who came into the ICU were
really sick and they were dying the same way is
you know, as I said, you don't wait for patients
to get sicker. We gave the vitamin C immediately, upfront,
and so there have been a number of randomized trials
which have failed to replicate what we did, including a
(36:48):
study out of Australia. But what they did in this
particular study is they waited at least twenty four hours
after the patient had been admitted to hospital before they
had given the C, which makes absolutely no sense because
if you're at risk of dying, you want to intervene early.
I said before, there's no disease that benefits from a
(37:11):
delay in initiating therapy. But this was done, we think,
by design, to try and discredit vitamin C. And after that,
after that, you know, we continue to use vitamin C.
And we put together a observational study because my nurses
stought it unethical to do a randomized study. You know,
(37:34):
when you know something is effective, because the nurses could
see it, the risk of patients getting kidney failure went down,
the use of dialysis machines went down, the length of
stay in the ICU went down. So we kept on
doing this and we you know, we collected forty eight
patients and we we published the data as an observational study.
(37:57):
We used a retrospective control group and it did you know,
it did get people's attention, and we know from speaking
to clinicians that the response that we saw was very
similar to what they saw. But again, there were a
number of studies that were designed which we think we're
(38:17):
designed to fail, in which the vitamin C was given
very late, and you know in that situation it's likely
to be less effective. And I think today you know
there's still a lot of interesting vitamin C although you
know the powers that we think it's an effective therapy.
It's safe, which is really important. So at worst, what
(38:42):
you know, when people patients called me, I said, well,
you know what, what do you have to lose? All
that can happen is you can say of the patient's life,
it's exceedingly safe and it's cheap. But that goes against
you know, what the pharmaceutical industrial complex is trying to push.
Speaker 2 (39:01):
You came from South Africa and I think ninety five
ninety two.
Speaker 4 (39:05):
If I remember I left just before Part eight fell apart.
Speaker 2 (39:10):
Well, your memory on that date would be better than mine,
of course, So you moved in ninety two, you discovered
success and recognition, and now you find yourself in a
position of unemployment in what is what is your career,
what you'd prefer to be doing. How are you well?
(39:34):
First of all, do you have any regrets on moving
to America after what's happened? And how are you now
making a living?
Speaker 3 (39:44):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (39:44):
So you asked some good questions. So, you know, I
thought the move to the US was a good move.
It gave me enormous opportunities. I could achieve what I
wanted to achieve professionally. But obviously I had no idea
what was in store for me. You know, I thought,
(40:05):
if you were a scientist and you tell the truth,
that people value those characteristics. But certainly not so obviously,
you know, I'm telling the truth. And with COVID, I
lost my job, I lost my license, I lost my
hospital privileges. As you said, the American Board of Internal
(40:26):
Medicine decertified me. So basically, this system had made me unemployable,
which is, you know, which is a pity. But you
know what, I.
Speaker 2 (40:39):
Don't sound angry.
Speaker 4 (40:43):
You know what I've I missed clinical medicine because that's
what I was. I was a South African doctor who's
got enormous enjoyment and satisfaction from treating patients, you know,
direct patient contact, which I think is so important, But
I've had to kind of reinvent myself. Obviously financially it's
(41:07):
I've taken in a big hit. But you know what,
money doesn't buy everything in this world. And so I
found a new niche of trying to tell the truth
as it goes to cancer, as it goes to diabetes,
as it goes to depression, as it goes to most
chronic diseases, because basically, the healthcare system in the US anyway,
(41:31):
and I would assume in most Western countries, is a
system based on chronic disease. It's a system which promotes sickness,
it promotes the use of medications. It's a sickness system
rather than a healthcare system. And so for many of
the diseases I've mentioned, you know, what they want to
(41:53):
do is get you hooked on medication for life. And
I give you as an example. I was a type
two diabetic and I thought I would have type two
diabetes for the rest of my life and I would
be dependent on expensive pharmaceutical products. But just adopting a
number of lifestyle changes which are not very difficult, I
(42:17):
was able to cure myself of diabetes. And you know,
you can say the same thing about metabolic syndrome, depression,
many autoimmune diseases that you know, patients can empower themselves
to take control, not to trust the healthcare system. It's
a terrible thing that I'm saying, and I say this
(42:40):
with a broken heart, that the healthcare system is not
a healthcare system. It's a disease system that's designed to
keep you as sick as you can for as long
as they can, and for them to make as much
money as they can. And so I have evolved, and
so I have. You know, I'm help people and I
(43:02):
think in this role maybe I've reached more people than
I did before.
Speaker 2 (43:08):
You continue to do so. Guy Hatchett is an Englishman
who book up residents in New Zealand some considerable time back.
He is not a doctor, but he's a PhD in
an associated area. He published something on and he publishes
frequently and he's fighting a battle. But he published something
(43:30):
over this last weekend to do with New Zealand Emergency
Department data and via a Freedom of information request to
the Health Department or Health New Zealand, they were asked
for the number of people under the age of forty
presenting to emergency departments throughout New Zealand hospitals with chest
(43:53):
pain or heart issues by year, And here are some
quick figures twenty nineteen, twenty two hundred and nineteen, twenty
twenty four, four hundred and six, twenty one thirteen, one
thousand and sixty three, twenty two, twenty one thousand, four
(44:13):
hundred and sixteen, in twenty three, last year twenty thousand
and five, and so far this year, not so far
to June this year, halfway through the year it was
fourteen thousand, six hundred and thirty nine. How do those
figures affect you? What are your thoughts?
Speaker 4 (44:33):
Yeah, so, I think those figures are alarming and any
healthcare administrator or any healthcare anyone involved in healthcare should
be shocked by those data because obviously there's something that's
happened in our community that's affecting the health of young
people and their chodiovascular health. And you know, it's not
(44:57):
difficult to know what that intervention is. It certainly is
not climate change. Climate change has not caused all of
these heart attacks and chest pain. There is something that
happened in twenty one, twenty two, twenty three, and you know,
I'll let you guess or your listeners guess what it was,
(45:19):
but that intervention has directly increased the risk of cardiovascular disease,
chest pain, and sudden death.
Speaker 3 (45:28):
And it's alarming.
Speaker 4 (45:31):
And so if healthcare administrators or legislators were really interested
in healthcare of the community, they would investigate this in
significant depth and to try and figure out which, we
know what the cause is, the you know what has happened,
(45:52):
and what measures can be taken to protect these poor
people from further cardiovascular events.
Speaker 2 (45:59):
I'll get your opinion. Also on his last short paragraph,
it is so far past time to recognize past mRNA
COVID vaccine harm and the growing dangers ahead, especially as
multiple mRNA vaccines are under development and soon to be
offered to the public. Our government is planning to deregulate biotechnology,
(46:24):
rushing like a must to the flame. This has to
stop now, And you would.
Speaker 3 (46:30):
Say, yeah, I absolutely agree.
Speaker 4 (46:33):
I mean so obviously, what I was saying is that
there's very good data that these jabs, these emerin a
genetic therapy jobs are directly responsible for the massive increase
in a sudden deaths in corriovascular events through multiple different pathways.
Speaker 3 (46:53):
The spark protein is.
Speaker 4 (46:54):
Probably the most toxic protein known to the human body.
It does all kinds of really bad things. A recent
paper in Nature, which is a really reputable journal, so
you know, we're going back to the journals.
Speaker 3 (47:10):
Can you trust it?
Speaker 4 (47:11):
But it actually showed that spike protein directly binds to fibrin,
which is a clotting protein and activates clotting. So you
know that wasn't censored up until now. And so we
know that spike protein causes inflammation of the lining of
the blood vessels, it causes inflammation in cardiac blood vessels,
(47:36):
it causes damage to the heart. So this is a
this is a well documented in the literature observation, and
so it puts the community at increased risk of sudden
cardiac deaths. And we know there's been an explosion of
sudden deaths in young people, which is very, very troubling.
Speaker 2 (47:59):
How many speeches have you given so far? Just the one?
Speaker 3 (48:04):
So it us it it.
Speaker 4 (48:07):
We had an event in christ Church, I've given you know,
one lecture there, and we have an upcoming event in
Auckland and I'm going to repeat the same lecture. But
you know I've done many zoom conferences on this topic,
and you know, I will continue to tell the truth.
But you know, if people want to disagree, then that's fine.
(48:29):
We can have a civil conversation and discuss the science,
but you can't obliterate what you don't want to see.
Speaker 2 (48:38):
Any doctors turn up for your christ Church speech.
Speaker 4 (48:43):
You know. Yeah, So surprisingly, the attendance was very good.
You know, I would say fifty percent will maybe lay people,
fifty percent were physicians. And I think, you know, it's
a delight to speak to these people because you feel
that you are you're amongst your brothers and sisters, that
you like minded people, and you can talk to each other.
(49:06):
And it was very enlightening. I think it was enlightening
for me, but for the audience as well. And that's
what we need more of, is let's have open dialogue,
Let's talk to each other. Let's be civil to each other.
Rather than all these censorship and recriminations and tapers being
withdrawn and books being banned. I think that's heading in
(49:29):
a really bad direction.
Speaker 2 (49:32):
But it's hitting in that direction along with another a
number of other causes. Shall we say, of those doctors
who turned up for christ Church, did any challenge you? Seriously?
Speaker 3 (49:48):
No, I can't think of this thing.
Speaker 4 (49:49):
You know, we had many you know, after the lecture,
I spoke to many physicians and none of them could present,
you know, data which discredited what I had to say.
So I think that they were in full agreement because
if you look at the data they even the data
that's published, it's overwhelming. It's you know, it's very difficult
(50:14):
to dispute the obvious. For example, I can give you
quote one study from the Cleveland Clinic. The Cleveland Clinic
is regarded as one of the most prestigious medical institutions
in the world, and basically what they showed is the
more the increasing number of times you get jabbed, So
(50:35):
those patients who received the most number of vaccinations had
the increased risk of getting COVID. So rather than the
jab protecting you, it seemed that the more times that
they received the vaccine, the more times, the greater their
risk of getting COVID, so that the risk of COVID
(50:58):
increased with the number of jabs. I mean, it's very
compelling data.
Speaker 2 (51:05):
I want I want to raise another subject just before
we conclude, and just just get your opinion. So I
asked this as an innocent question, do you have an
opinion on statins.
Speaker 4 (51:28):
So that's a really interesting question. As I say, you know,
I have changed, as is my understanding. I used to
take a.
Speaker 3 (51:35):
Statin until I became.
Speaker 4 (51:38):
Aware of the staten hoax. It's a complete and at
a hoax that these drugs have significant side effects. In fact,
you know, what they do is to interfere with cholesterol synthesis,
and the probably the most important organ that depends on
cholesterol is the brain. The brand has a high cholesterol content,
(51:58):
and there's very good data showing that statins increase your
risk of dementia. We know statan's increase the risk of
liver disease. Statins increase the risk of muscle disease, but
do they protect and the data suggests that if for
primary prophylaxis, the use of statins has negligible impact, So
(52:23):
it increases the risk of side effects with very little
positive benefit. There may be certain subgroups of patients that
may benefit from a statin for a short time limited
trial six months, but these are not drugs that should
be given lifelong. It just so happens that a statin
(52:45):
a torv staaten, is the most commonly prescribed drug in
the United States. Of America. That's this stranglehold big farma
has on the medical system. We used to think that
statins were effective in preventing heart disease, but we've now
discovered that the converse is true.
Speaker 2 (53:06):
When you say where would where would one find that
information confirmation?
Speaker 4 (53:13):
Yeah, there's actually a few books that have been written
called the Staaten Hoax, which I would suggest people read.
You know, obviously, the medical literature, the major medical journals
aren't going to promote this idea, but there have been
meta analyses that have been done published in peer review
journals which actually show that the mortality benefit of primary
(53:38):
profile acces with Staaten's is close to zero, close to zero,
and we do know that Statin's increased. As I said,
there is a dementia, diabetes, lever disease, muscle disease. So,
you know, the truth ready is important.
Speaker 2 (53:55):
But the eternal question is what is truth? That doesn't
require an answer?
Speaker 3 (54:03):
Yeah, so that's something.
Speaker 4 (54:05):
Yeah, I mean, you ask a really good question what
is the truth? And I think, you know, I think
people need to question everything they told to, you know,
to verify its source and to verify this scientific rigorousness,
and just to not you know, we so brainwashed. We
(54:26):
need to start thinking critically and start using our brain
rather than believing everything we told, and then hopefully we
will come to some kind of a truth.
Speaker 2 (54:38):
Indeed, So finally, Robert Malone, are you friends with him?
Speaker 3 (54:45):
I know Robert quite well.
Speaker 4 (54:48):
We acquaint I would say we acquaintances rather than good friends.
Speaker 2 (54:52):
Sometimes that's better. Yeah, he published, and by the way,
I've got I have to say this. I can't accept
that he writes everything himself. Orbit accept that he agrees
with it and may even commission it. But he publish
It's a fifty seven page because I got it here.
I printed it a great expense to myself. He published
(55:16):
only a few weeks ago, Packed for the Future, the
Socialist Manifesto fifty seven pages, and it begins September twenty
twenty four. The United Nations will be meeting in New
York to discuss and vote on three new treaties. The
first to be discussed is called the Pact for the Future.
(55:38):
I'm not going to insult you all by stating that
or what I think about this document without having presented
the treaty for all of you to pursue. Keep in
mind that this is just one of three treaties or
packs up for vote and signing at the UN end
of September. That's by way of introduction to what I've received. Again.
(55:59):
Only this morning, the UN just adopted the Packed for
the Future, which lays the foundation for a new global order.
That's what it says, a new global order. You have
any comment to make on the UN, the who and
where they're headed.
Speaker 4 (56:16):
I think it's terrifying and I think we should be
do whatever we can to speak to people in government,
speak of people in power, Speak to our legislators that
the WH and the UN need to take their fingers
out of our lives. You know, that they should not
be dictating how we live, where we live, what we eat.
(56:39):
And I think this one power government is a very
dangerous slippery slope and we should be outraged.
Speaker 2 (56:49):
And yet it hardly gets any mention, any discussion in
the mainstream media. It is something that seems to be
or seems to fit in with the general acceptance of
what is yet to come.
Speaker 3 (57:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (57:05):
Absolutely, I think it's imperative that people are aware of
where the UN and w H is going, and we
need to do whatever we can to prevent. You know,
we need to restore democracy. We need to restore human dignity,
we need to restore you know, human individuality, and we're
(57:29):
going down a terrible slippery slope.
Speaker 2 (57:32):
Well you said the not just on a path, you're
well on the on the way to shall I say,
a destination that is to be admired and you are
to be congratulated. Thank you so much for the time
you've given. Glad you made it to New Zealand, and
I hope the rest of your your journey and your
speeches are successful.
Speaker 3 (57:54):
Well, thank you kindly.
Speaker 4 (57:56):
It's been a delight speaking with you, and I've really
enjoyed it, and so thank you kindly my.
Speaker 2 (58:02):
Pleasure, and I speak on behalf of some considerable thousands
of people. Thank you so much, Paul.
Speaker 3 (58:10):
Thank you my friend.
Speaker 2 (58:29):
Now I'm doing it a little differently this year. At
the end of the replay, I usually have a few
words to say, and every year I have to struggle
to think up what the appropriate thing is to put
in this particular plot. So I've decided to give myself
a break and do one that covers all of them.
So if you've heard this before, you can turn it
(58:50):
off because you've heard it because it's going to be
the same one for each of the seven replays. Now,
if this is the first one, then I trust that
you're having a wonderful holiday. If you're not on holiday yet,
your time will come. Rest assured. I have enjoyed doing
these because read listening to them myself, I get more
(59:12):
out of them and I see things, or I should say,
I hear things that I might have got slightly wrong
or I could have done better, So it's a learning
curve as well. Anyway, we will be back for the
next one a week from this particular release, unless, of
course it's the last one, which is on the twenty
ninth of January, and that'll be the end of this
(59:35):
replay series. Add on February five, we shall return with
fresh content in the meantime at any stage, drop us
on notes if you've got comment that you'd like to
make later at Newstalks atb dot co dot Enzen and
Caroline at Newstalks ATB dot co dot Nz and we
shall talk soon.
Speaker 1 (01:00:01):
Thank you for more from News Talks at b Listen
live on air or online, and keep our shows with
you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com