April 14, 2026 • 12 mins
Labour leader Chris Hipkins says ministers did not receive key advice about myocarditis risks for 12 to 17-year‑olds during the COVID response.
Speaking on Canterbury Mornings, Hipkins was questioned by John MacDonald about the findings from the Royal Commission into COVID‑19, which said expert advice on vaccine mandates for teenagers was delayed in being provided to ministers.
Hipkins said the advice, produced by a technical advisory group, was never passed on to responsible ministers at all.
“The particular report that came from the technical advisory group was never shared with ministers."
They also covered Labours concerns regarding the India free trade agreement, and what he thinks about National MP Rima Nakhle's bill to stop the public funding going to gangs.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from newstalk Z'B Good Morning.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
On March the tenth, the Ministry of Health put out
a statement regarding the report on Phase two of the
COVID Inquiry, in which it said, quote the report highlighted
areas where the actions of public servants fell short. Specifically,
the report highlights a situation where the Commission found expert
advice regarding vaccine mandates for twelve to seventeen year olds
was delayed in being provided to ministers that was in
(00:36):
relation to the risk of myocarditis. How did the inquiry
get this impression that this information hadn't been shared with ministers?
Speaker 3 (00:44):
Well, it wasn't. The particular report that came from the
Technical Advisory Group was never shared them with ministers. The
only reference that anyone could find to that advice having
ever been shared with ministers was in a paper, an
unrelated paper that was presented to Cabinet on the day
that the vaccine mandates the taxing pass requirements were removed.
(01:08):
The decision was taken to remove them.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
But how did the inquiry get this impression that this
had happened?
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Well, because that's the fact.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Did you did you tell was that part of your evidence?
Speaker 3 (01:20):
Well, they interviewed us on the they asked us about
the memo in question, and you know, we had to
say to them all, we can't answer questions about that
memo question because none of us had seen it, and
so they.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Talked from that that that's how the inquiry reached the
conclusion it did, Is that right?
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Well, the Ministry of Health have also confirmed that that
that that particular report never went to the ministers who
were responsible.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
So when you said after the report was released, you said,
quote or you described it as quote a massive failing
on the part of the system. Were you making that up?
Were you telling the truth or were you fudging things?
Speaker 3 (02:01):
Well, I'm not sure your aun questioning is I mean,
there was echoing what the Royal Commission itself said. Ministry
of Health is subsequently issued the statement saying as well,
the report wasn't given to ministers. But I do want
to acknowledge that there is public concern about the contents
of their report and I think it's important that we
do provide clarity around what the report was. It wasn't
(02:22):
to do with the safety of vaccines of teenagers in general.
This was specific to whether it was justified to have
a vaccine mandate for people in a workplace, for younger
people in a workplace setting the overall med safe decision,
so they approved a two course dose of the vaccine
(02:45):
for teenagers. That approval was never changed. The Technical Advisory
groups recommendation that teenagers be brought into the vaccination program
with a two course dose, that never changed. The advice
here was specific to whether a mandate for that particular
age cohort working in a workplace should remain in place
(03:08):
with two doses or one dose. That's what the advice
was actually about.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
And when was it you received that vice, the advice
in relation to the cabinet paper with your name on
it and which had notes on it written by Oshaviro.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
Oh, it would have been probably the day before that
went to the Cabinet committee. And at that cabinet committee
we then well, and actually let's be clear here. There
there are two pieces of advice. One was fairly generic
in nature, and we did receive that advice. I think
it would would have been in early January. The second
(03:45):
piece of advice, which was the one that raised the
issues around myocarditis that was never received by ministers, and
the only reference to that that we've been able to
find was in a cabinet paper that probably was received
by my office the day before I went to the
Cabinet Committee, because that was the paper that was the paperwork.
It was among the paperwork that was removing the requirements.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
What damage you think this is done to the public's
trust in you?
Speaker 3 (04:09):
Well, I hope, I mean, well, I'm sure.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
I'm sure you hope, Chris. But what damage you think
it might have done?
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Well, you can't. I mean, you can't be responsible for
things that you haven't seen.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
So why should people trust you? I think that's the
that's the issue some people have as they might hear
you explain these things, and you know, you might be
able to make it sound perfectly fine, But why should
people trust you because there is so much doubt out there?
Speaker 3 (04:35):
Well, I mean, look, I can't you know, I can't
control what other people say. Around the safety of vaccinations,
the advice continues to be as of now, the vaccination
is safe and effective. That's still the advice of med Safe.
It's still the standing advice of the Technical Advisory Group,
although they have subsequently been disbanded. Now my understanding is
that they don't. That particular advisory doesn't exist anymore, and
(04:57):
it's still the official government position of New Zealand under
the current government encouraging people to be vaccinated.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Right, So it's still your view that the government at
the time was left in the dark by officials, is there?
Speaker 3 (05:09):
Right? Well, that is what the Royal Commission found and
is what the Ministry of Health themselves have.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Said, right, So what follow ups should there be to that?
Do you think?
Speaker 3 (05:18):
Well, look, I think we have to accept that. That
is all of the past. There has been a Royal
Commission accepted that.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Is that good enough? Chris, I thought all these things
about learning and making sure things don't happen again.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Well, I mean you're talking about advice that was specific
to the time. Of course, the bettervice subsequently changed and
the week after the discussion around that, the very same
technical Advisory group was making a recommendation that teenagers should
be eligible for a third dose. So you know, the
advice was specific to that very time and that time
has subsequently passed.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Yeah, okay, but I mean you don't think there should
be any follow up, let alone consequences because what's going
to what's going to stop officials from keeping ministers in
the dark in the future if you don't do anything
about it.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
I completely said that the officials were doing the best
they could at the time. I think it was a
massive oversight that this particular piece of advice wasn't.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Well, that's not the best. It's not the A massive
oversight is not doing the best.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
There was an awful lot happening at the time in question,
including pretty big decisions about moving away from vaccination requirements
all together, which is what we made the first decisions
about at that same meeting.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
So no matter what comes out of inquiries, whether there
are consequences or not, is not relevant to you.
Speaker 3 (06:38):
Well, the vast majority of the people I think you
were involved in those decisions don't actually work for the
Ministry of Health anymore.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
We talked free trade with India. What information about this
proposed deal is the government not sharing with the public
that has labored all antsy about it.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
There's three main areas of concern for US. First, the
investment provisions and the deal which say that New Zealand
should invest thirty three billion New Zealand dollars in India
over the next fifteen years, and we don't think that's
a realistic or credible target for New Zealand. To put
that into context, the first fifteen years of the China
Free Trade Agreement, we've spent about one and a half
(07:16):
billion dollars in total investing into China and most of
that was driven by Fon Piero, who are specifically excluded
by the India of free Trade Agreement. So we're really
concerned about the implications of not meeting that target. The
Minister of Trade or the Minister of Commerce in India
who's negotiated on the India side, is on records saying
that if New Zealand doesn't meet that commitment, India will
(07:36):
claw back the concessions that it's given us. That would
potentially leave our exporters in a very difficult position.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
I hear what you're saying and share I have those
misgivings as well. Nevertheless, how come we've had business leaders
that coming up this week saying that you guys need
to support it.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Well, I suppose by that because they haven't actually seen
the deal, So you know, it seems to lack a
bit of due diligence that you've got business leaders out
there saying that political parties had support a deal that
they themselves haven't seen.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
So it's a hold on it. Have you seen it?
Have you seen it?
Speaker 3 (08:08):
John? I got thirty three billion dollars that they're willing
to send to India. My question to them is why
aren't they investing that in New Zealand and creating jobs
in New Zealand?
Speaker 2 (08:15):
Have you seen the deal?
Speaker 3 (08:17):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (08:18):
I have you have? And are you saying that if
these business leaders had also seen it they wouldn't be
as bolshite about it?
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Well, my question to them is where's the thirty three
billion dollars going to come from? They're clearly confident that
they're going to be able to meet that target, So
where's the money and why aren't they spending it in
New Zealand and creating jobs and economic opportunities for New Zealanders.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Out of one to ten, what chance of labor supporting it?
Speaker 3 (08:42):
Well, it really depends on what the advice is. So
that was one of the issues. There are other two
issues really are around movement of people. So one is
around international students. This would allow an uncapped number of internationals.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Chris Chris, it's uncapped at the moment it is.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
But the difference here is we took away work right
for a large group of those international students. Was they
were coming in primarily for work rather than for education,
and it was undermine in New Zealand's own domestic labor market.
The current government have reinstated those work rights and are
now locking them in in a way that a future
(09:20):
government couldn't change them. Because of this free trading centers.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
Let another concerns number three and.
Speaker 3 (09:25):
The third area of concerns around family members of those
coming in on visas. The government have said that the
visas would only apply to the individual, not to their
family members. The text of the agreement suggests otherwise, and
so we're still wanting for absolute clarity from the government
on there.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Okay, on Sivians's q and A. Recently, I saw your
Foreign Fair spokesperson Venushi Walters, who's a former human rights lawyer,
talking about her interest in the human rights records of
our trading partners. What concerns does labor have in this
regard with India.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
I mean, we have human rights concerns with a range
of countries and we raise those where there are specific
reasons to raise them. So in the case of China,
we've raised concerns around human rights with China, and I
did that when I traveled to China myself as Prime Minister.
With regard to India, I haven't looked at that specifically myself,
so I mean, I can't speak to that issue, but
(10:18):
it is something that even if we signed this trade agreement,
were human rights issues come to the fore, we shouldn't
hesitate to raise those with our trading partners.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
All Right, A couple of other things to tick off
A nationally peace pushing for a law change that would
put a stop to taxpayer money going into gangs or
anyone associated with gangs. Where do you stand on that?
Speaker 3 (10:38):
Well, the National Party said that they had already done that,
so I'm kind of surprised. I think there was only
one example that anybody could find that having happened. It
was a drug and alcohol rehab program that involved Harry Tam.
The funding for that's been stopped. So as far as
I know, this is a bill looking for a problem.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
Yeah, old on, Do you agree with the sentiment behind it?
Speaker 1 (10:59):
All?
Speaker 3 (10:59):
Right? Look, I'm relatively ambivalent about it, to be honest. Well,
I don't really have any time for gangs. If the
money is not going to the gangs, now the need
to pass a lord to stop it going to them.
But they're already not getting it.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
The person listening to this is right now is probably laughing.
They're laughing the head of head off hearing you say
you don't have time for gangs. Given the Labor government's
record of providing tax payer funding to gang organizations.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
Well, one example.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
Is that the only one, is it.
Speaker 3 (11:32):
As far as I'm not if some of them aware,
that is the only example that anyone's been able to find,
and the funding for that contract was stopped.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Just one further thing, you might have seen that the
Lobby group tax just to solve here or is calling
today for a couple of gains tax and inheritance tax
and a wealth tax which goes further than Labour's point
or where Labor has gone so far on this how
receptive value to this call today?
Speaker 3 (11:56):
Bobby Group's going to argue for whatever they want. We've
announced our text policy, which is a simple, targeted, typical
gains tax, and that's as far as Labor will be
going in that area.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
That's stop.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
Yeah, absolutely, we were very clear on that when we announced.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
It all right, Chris, catch up in a fortnite Okay
cheers John.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
For more from Category Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news talks A'd Be Christchurch from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from newstalk Z'B Good Morning.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
On March the tenth, the Ministry of Health put out
a statement regarding the report on Phase two of the
COVID Inquiry, in which it said, quote the report highlighted
areas where the actions of public servants fell short. Specifically,
the report highlights a situation where the Commission found expert
advice regarding vaccine mandates for twelve to seventeen year olds
was delayed in being provided to ministers that was in
(00:36):
relation to the risk of myocarditis. How did the inquiry
get this impression that this information hadn't been shared with ministers?
Speaker 3 (00:44):
Well, it wasn't. The particular report that came from the
Technical Advisory Group was never shared them with ministers. The
only reference that anyone could find to that advice having
ever been shared with ministers was in a paper, an
unrelated paper that was presented to Cabinet on the day
that the vaccine mandates the taxing pass requirements were removed.
(01:08):
The decision was taken to remove them.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
But how did the inquiry get this impression that this
had happened?
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Well, because that's the fact.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Did you did you tell was that part of your evidence?
Speaker 3 (01:20):
Well, they interviewed us on the they asked us about
the memo in question, and you know, we had to
say to them all, we can't answer questions about that
memo question because none of us had seen it, and
so they.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Talked from that that that's how the inquiry reached the
conclusion it did, Is that right?
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Well, the Ministry of Health have also confirmed that that
that that particular report never went to the ministers who
were responsible.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
So when you said after the report was released, you said,
quote or you described it as quote a massive failing
on the part of the system. Were you making that up?
Were you telling the truth or were you fudging things?
Speaker 3 (02:01):
Well, I'm not sure your aun questioning is I mean,
there was echoing what the Royal Commission itself said. Ministry
of Health is subsequently issued the statement saying as well,
the report wasn't given to ministers. But I do want
to acknowledge that there is public concern about the contents
of their report and I think it's important that we
do provide clarity around what the report was. It wasn't
(02:22):
to do with the safety of vaccines of teenagers in general.
This was specific to whether it was justified to have
a vaccine mandate for people in a workplace, for younger
people in a workplace setting the overall med safe decision,
so they approved a two course dose of the vaccine
(02:45):
for teenagers. That approval was never changed. The Technical Advisory
groups recommendation that teenagers be brought into the vaccination program
with a two course dose, that never changed. The advice
here was specific to whether a mandate for that particular
age cohort working in a workplace should remain in place
(03:08):
with two doses or one dose. That's what the advice
was actually about.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
And when was it you received that vice, the advice
in relation to the cabinet paper with your name on
it and which had notes on it written by Oshaviro.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
Oh, it would have been probably the day before that
went to the Cabinet committee. And at that cabinet committee
we then well, and actually let's be clear here. There
there are two pieces of advice. One was fairly generic
in nature, and we did receive that advice. I think
it would would have been in early January. The second
(03:45):
piece of advice, which was the one that raised the
issues around myocarditis that was never received by ministers, and
the only reference to that that we've been able to
find was in a cabinet paper that probably was received
by my office the day before I went to the
Cabinet Committee, because that was the paper that was the paperwork.
It was among the paperwork that was removing the requirements.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
What damage you think this is done to the public's
trust in you?
Speaker 3 (04:09):
Well, I hope, I mean, well, I'm sure.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
I'm sure you hope, Chris. But what damage you think
it might have done?
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Well, you can't. I mean, you can't be responsible for
things that you haven't seen.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
So why should people trust you? I think that's the
that's the issue some people have as they might hear
you explain these things, and you know, you might be
able to make it sound perfectly fine, But why should
people trust you because there is so much doubt out there?
Speaker 3 (04:35):
Well, I mean, look, I can't you know, I can't
control what other people say. Around the safety of vaccinations,
the advice continues to be as of now, the vaccination
is safe and effective. That's still the advice of med Safe.
It's still the standing advice of the Technical Advisory Group,
although they have subsequently been disbanded. Now my understanding is
that they don't. That particular advisory doesn't exist anymore, and
(04:57):
it's still the official government position of New Zealand under
the current government encouraging people to be vaccinated.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Right, So it's still your view that the government at
the time was left in the dark by officials, is there?
Speaker 3 (05:09):
Right? Well, that is what the Royal Commission found and
is what the Ministry of Health themselves have.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Said, right, So what follow ups should there be to that?
Do you think?
Speaker 3 (05:18):
Well, look, I think we have to accept that. That
is all of the past. There has been a Royal
Commission accepted that.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Is that good enough? Chris, I thought all these things
about learning and making sure things don't happen again.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Well, I mean you're talking about advice that was specific
to the time. Of course, the bettervice subsequently changed and
the week after the discussion around that, the very same
technical Advisory group was making a recommendation that teenagers should
be eligible for a third dose. So you know, the
advice was specific to that very time and that time
has subsequently passed.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Yeah, okay, but I mean you don't think there should
be any follow up, let alone consequences because what's going
to what's going to stop officials from keeping ministers in
the dark in the future if you don't do anything
about it.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
I completely said that the officials were doing the best
they could at the time. I think it was a
massive oversight that this particular piece of advice wasn't.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Well, that's not the best. It's not the A massive
oversight is not doing the best.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
There was an awful lot happening at the time in question,
including pretty big decisions about moving away from vaccination requirements
all together, which is what we made the first decisions
about at that same meeting.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
So no matter what comes out of inquiries, whether there
are consequences or not, is not relevant to you.
Speaker 3 (06:38):
Well, the vast majority of the people I think you
were involved in those decisions don't actually work for the
Ministry of Health anymore.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
We talked free trade with India. What information about this
proposed deal is the government not sharing with the public
that has labored all antsy about it.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
There's three main areas of concern for US. First, the
investment provisions and the deal which say that New Zealand
should invest thirty three billion New Zealand dollars in India
over the next fifteen years, and we don't think that's
a realistic or credible target for New Zealand. To put
that into context, the first fifteen years of the China
Free Trade Agreement, we've spent about one and a half
(07:16):
billion dollars in total investing into China and most of
that was driven by Fon Piero, who are specifically excluded
by the India of free Trade Agreement. So we're really
concerned about the implications of not meeting that target. The
Minister of Trade or the Minister of Commerce in India
who's negotiated on the India side, is on records saying
that if New Zealand doesn't meet that commitment, India will
(07:36):
claw back the concessions that it's given us. That would
potentially leave our exporters in a very difficult position.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
I hear what you're saying and share I have those
misgivings as well. Nevertheless, how come we've had business leaders
that coming up this week saying that you guys need
to support it.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Well, I suppose by that because they haven't actually seen
the deal, So you know, it seems to lack a
bit of due diligence that you've got business leaders out
there saying that political parties had support a deal that
they themselves haven't seen.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
So it's a hold on it. Have you seen it?
Have you seen it?
Speaker 3 (08:08):
John? I got thirty three billion dollars that they're willing
to send to India. My question to them is why
aren't they investing that in New Zealand and creating jobs
in New Zealand?
Speaker 2 (08:15):
Have you seen the deal?
Speaker 3 (08:17):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (08:18):
I have you have? And are you saying that if
these business leaders had also seen it they wouldn't be
as bolshite about it?
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Well, my question to them is where's the thirty three
billion dollars going to come from? They're clearly confident that
they're going to be able to meet that target, So
where's the money and why aren't they spending it in
New Zealand and creating jobs and economic opportunities for New Zealanders.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Out of one to ten, what chance of labor supporting it?
Speaker 3 (08:42):
Well, it really depends on what the advice is. So
that was one of the issues. There are other two
issues really are around movement of people. So one is
around international students. This would allow an uncapped number of internationals.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Chris Chris, it's uncapped at the moment it is.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
But the difference here is we took away work right
for a large group of those international students. Was they
were coming in primarily for work rather than for education,
and it was undermine in New Zealand's own domestic labor market.
The current government have reinstated those work rights and are
now locking them in in a way that a future
(09:20):
government couldn't change them. Because of this free trading centers.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
Let another concerns number three and.
Speaker 3 (09:25):
The third area of concerns around family members of those
coming in on visas. The government have said that the
visas would only apply to the individual, not to their
family members. The text of the agreement suggests otherwise, and
so we're still wanting for absolute clarity from the government
on there.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Okay, on Sivians's q and A. Recently, I saw your
Foreign Fair spokesperson Venushi Walters, who's a former human rights lawyer,
talking about her interest in the human rights records of
our trading partners. What concerns does labor have in this
regard with India.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
I mean, we have human rights concerns with a range
of countries and we raise those where there are specific
reasons to raise them. So in the case of China,
we've raised concerns around human rights with China, and I
did that when I traveled to China myself as Prime Minister.
With regard to India, I haven't looked at that specifically myself,
so I mean, I can't speak to that issue, but
(10:18):
it is something that even if we signed this trade agreement,
were human rights issues come to the fore, we shouldn't
hesitate to raise those with our trading partners.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
All Right, A couple of other things to tick off
A nationally peace pushing for a law change that would
put a stop to taxpayer money going into gangs or
anyone associated with gangs. Where do you stand on that?
Speaker 3 (10:38):
Well, the National Party said that they had already done that,
so I'm kind of surprised. I think there was only
one example that anybody could find that having happened. It
was a drug and alcohol rehab program that involved Harry Tam.
The funding for that's been stopped. So as far as
I know, this is a bill looking for a problem.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
Yeah, old on, Do you agree with the sentiment behind it?
Speaker 1 (10:59):
All?
Speaker 3 (10:59):
Right? Look, I'm relatively ambivalent about it, to be honest. Well,
I don't really have any time for gangs. If the
money is not going to the gangs, now the need
to pass a lord to stop it going to them.
But they're already not getting it.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
The person listening to this is right now is probably laughing.
They're laughing the head of head off hearing you say
you don't have time for gangs. Given the Labor government's
record of providing tax payer funding to gang organizations.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
Well, one example.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
Is that the only one, is it.
Speaker 3 (11:32):
As far as I'm not if some of them aware,
that is the only example that anyone's been able to find,
and the funding for that contract was stopped.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Just one further thing, you might have seen that the
Lobby group tax just to solve here or is calling
today for a couple of gains tax and inheritance tax
and a wealth tax which goes further than Labour's point
or where Labor has gone so far on this how
receptive value to this call today?
Speaker 3 (11:56):
Bobby Group's going to argue for whatever they want. We've
announced our text policy, which is a simple, targeted, typical
gains tax, and that's as far as Labor will be
going in that area.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
That's stop.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
Yeah, absolutely, we were very clear on that when we announced.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
It all right, Chris, catch up in a fortnite Okay
cheers John.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
For more from Category Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news talks A'd Be Christchurch from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast 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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Betrayal Season 5
Saskia Inwood woke up one morning, knowing her life would never be the same. The night before, she learned the unimaginable – that the husband she knew in the light of day was a different person after dark. This season unpacks Saskia’s discovery of her husband’s secret life and her fight to bring him to justice. Along the way, we expose a crime that is just coming to light. This is also a story about the myth of the “perfect victim:” who gets believed, who gets doubted, and why. We follow Saskia as she works to reclaim her body, her voice, and her life. If you would like to reach out to the Betrayal Team, email us at betrayalpod@gmail.com. Follow us on Instagram @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.