All Episodes

December 24, 2024 69 mins

Leighton is on summer break, so we are highlighting some of his favourite guests from 2024.

Since 2020, the W.H.O. has orchestrated and condoned one of the most devastating assaults on individual and societal health the world has seen.

At the behest of highly conflicted sponsors, this international bureaucracy promoted policies that overwhelmingly harmed the world’s disadvantaged.

Lacking any contrition, the W.H.O. is now seeking increased public funding through misrepresentation of risk and return on investment to entrench this response.

The past, present and future of the World Health Organisation, addressed with David Bell, former medical officer and scientist at the W.H.O.

And is Shane Jones right to be concerned about New Zealand’s participation?

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 ed B
follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of now the Leighton Smith
Podcast powered.

Speaker 2 (00:26):
By News Talks Ed.

Speaker 3 (00:27):
Well, this hasn't happened before. This is the first time
that we have had a release on Christmas Day. So
the second of our best of series through the holiday
period and it's with David Bell. Now. This is an
extensive interview with David on the expansion of the World
Health Organization's powers and influence. He has worked for twenty

(00:51):
years in biotech and international public health in numerous capacities,
with over one hundred and twenty research publications. David explains
why New Zealand and other countries should stand their ground
and refrain from signing on to changes that the World
Health Organization is looking for. It is a very important discussion.

(01:16):
And then if you like what you hear, there is
another very very good interview with David Bell in Podcasts
two one hundred and sixty five. Just to do a
search for the Latenessmith podcast two sixty five and it
will find you in the meantime, I wish you an
enjoyable listen of course, and Merry Christmas, and may everything

(01:38):
be right.

Speaker 2 (01:39):
In your world.

Speaker 3 (01:49):
Layton Smith Leverix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to
the highest quality. Leverix relieves hay fever and skin allergies
or itchy skin. It's a dual action antihistamine and has
a unique nasal decongested action. It's fast acting for fast relief,
and it works in under an hour and lasts for

(02:12):
over twenty four hours. Levers is a tiny tablet that
unblocks the nose, deals with itchy eyes, and stops sneezing.
Leverix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality.
So next time you're in need of an effective antihistamine,
call into the pharmacy and ask for Leverix l v

(02:33):
rix Leverix and always read the label. Take as directed,
and if symptoms persist, see your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland.
David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public

(02:53):
health physician a biotech consultant in global health. David is
a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health
Organization the WHO Program Head for Malaria and Febrile Diseases
at the Foundation for Innovation of New Diagnostics in Geneva,
and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global

(03:16):
Good Fund in Bellevue in Washington State in the United States.
He is also a guest on this podcast. Has been
a guest on this podcast more than month twice, three
maybe four times. And it's very good to welcome you back.
I'm appreciative of the fact that you are here. Yeah,

(03:37):
thanks for having me back late. It is always it is
always a pleasure. I got to say what a quote.
I want to quote a lot of things actually in
this podcast, but let me start with an example of destructive,
unaccountable bureaucratic overreach, which is part of what you opened
up with for a column on Brownstone. An example, and

(04:00):
I repeat it, of destructive, unaccountable bureaucratic overreach. Are you
taking a stronger stance over I won't say against, but
over the World Health Organization that.

Speaker 2 (04:14):
I don't think so. I think for the last four
years I've been pointing out what is going on. I mean,
in the end, you have an organization that has knowingly
impoverished the world and that they absolutely knew what they're doing,
and it's I think most of your viewers probably don't
understand the extent of an additional one hundred million plus

(04:38):
people intovere poverty, food deprivation, up to ten million girls
in additional in child marriage, increased child labor, a huge
increase in national debt in low income countries, which will
translate into them being forced to comply with global predators
who prey on such in debted countries. And this is

(04:59):
what has happened. I think now it's interesting because that
there's a chance at least something may change slightly with
the US election. So it's but I think those words
are not out of sync with what I've and others
have been saying for quite a while. I was going
to show is a massive organization, is a huge bureaucracy,

(05:23):
it's grossly out of touch with reality, and it is
deliberately misleading countries.

Speaker 3 (05:29):
I was going to raise the American election result with
you a little later, So let's just park it for
the moment, because there is probably a little more than
than just this to discuss. I want to quote you
this particular headline, followed by another one. New Zealand first
fears over WHO regulations are misplaced, robust checks and balances

(05:56):
already exist. And then the second headline is Shane Jones
world Health Organization needs reform not fappening. Now, these are
two at variants commentaries. One is written by journalists, the
other is written by well politician. Which one of those
is closer to the reality.

Speaker 2 (06:18):
Or clearly the second one I think. I was on
this program where we were talking about the work at
the University of Leeds, where we're looking at the international
pandemic agenda, the push by WHO, World Bank G twenty,
et cetera to increase funding from countries from taxpayers for
this rapidly growing bureaucracy around pandemics and supposedly increasing pandemic risk,

(06:43):
and where we've shown conclusively that this is well as
WHO would term it, misinformation. They are twisting the reality
around infectious disease pandemic risk and the costs of dealing
with it and the effect that would have. But journalists,
I think, by enlarge, don't dig into things like that anymore.

(07:06):
They just assume if the World Bank or that G
twenty says something, it must be true. So I'm not
defending journalists, but I think that's probably where those sorts
of responses come from. So I mean, when that is happening,
when the who is doing that as well, then clearly
what Shane journesaid makes sense that the who is it

(07:29):
is a huge it's not just a who, but the
whole wintershal health bureaucracy is it's tens of thousands of people.
Now it is a huge and rapidly growing industry that
lives mostly off taxpayer money and mostly in very wealthy countries,
and as we saw in COVID, is now no longer

(07:52):
really helping, but is increasing the risk support health and
impoverishing people, concentrating wealth in the pharmaceutical companies that have
very much become influential in it. What these organizations should
be doing is helping countries when they're asked to build

(08:12):
capacity so that we don't need these organizations anymore. So
that's the op they shouldn't be growing. There was abo
IS set up in the late nineteen forties. It was
helping countries that came out of colonialism to sort of
get on their feet deal with major diseases like malaria, tuberculosis,

(08:36):
and now those what should what should be happening is US.
Countries should be getting on their feet. We shouldn't need
THEO anymore. In anything like you as a large organization,
you can have a place where countries meet and so on,
but there isn't a place for a growing international health bureaucracy.

(08:57):
If we are getting better at medicine in countries, and
we're building capacity, and sanitation is getting better, and nutrition
is getting better, et cetera, it should be. And if
that's still not the case, if we are seventy or
eighty years into WHO and they are seeing that problems
are growing and not reducing despite all the improvement in

(09:20):
technology and everything in the world, then clearly they're a
gross failure anyway, So we should be looking at something else.

Speaker 3 (09:27):
Since twenty twenty, the WHO has orchestrated and condoned one
of the most devastating assaults on individual and societal health
the world has seen. At the behest of highly conflicted sponsors,
this international bureaucracy promoted policies that overwhelmingly harmed the world's
most disadvantage. The organization turned on those whom it had

(09:49):
been set up to serve. Returning to the pre World
War II mindset of technocratic authoritarianism that characterize public health
in the area of eugenics, colonialism, and European fascism. Now,
those last three terms are things that those of the
left regale against constantly. And yet here we are, and

(10:13):
here you are writing that about an organization that we
all know. The bureaucracies either live by growth or die
by the growth. So is it fair to say that
they're simply thinking of survival.

Speaker 2 (10:32):
The thing of growth? Yeah, So the whos are organization
of thousands of people, and there's still people there who
are working hard and doing useful stuff. It's not like
the whole organization is completely corrupted, but I think at
the top of the policy level it has been for
the last several years. And you know, I mentioned that

(10:55):
some of the numbers in COVID. Then the abandonment of
science in COVID, which was gross, the abandonment of pretending
that mass work and social distinccing and pretending that you
should close stop travel when you've got the same virus
on both hends of the trouble path, and the essential

(11:16):
completely disregard for human immunity, natural immunity. We had the
most expensive of public health program in Africa, or mass
vaccination when who knew from their own studies that almost
the whole population already had effective immunity against COVID from

(11:37):
natural infection. So it's an organization which there's thousands of people.
If you're in an organization for twenty or thirty years,
inevitably you sort of lose the edge of the good
intent you might have gone in with, and you become
you want your pension, which is very extremely good at

(11:58):
who so you want to hang out for that, So
you want to comply. You have your kids in high
school or college or whatever, and they get a seventy
five percent education subsidy, get a rental subsidy, you get
very good salary. On top of all this, you get
business class travel, five star hotels or the rest of it.
So you inevitably, almost everyone, I think, start to think

(12:21):
that you're one, you're really important, more important than other
people because you've paid so well when you travel in
important aircraft seats and get picked up by cars with
a blue badge on the door. And secondly, oh, you
see it in all institutions. I think the role of
the institution or the existence and the reputation of the

(12:44):
institution becomes your primary focus because you think that the
world needs your institution and therefore you must protect it.
So you know, this is the sort of thing that
is the effect of the Catholic Church, for instance, with
with the cover up of child sexual abuse in the past,
and you see the same thing in the UN actually

(13:05):
for exactly the same issue. Or really the Human Rights
Council has been guilty of this in Central African Republic
about ten years ago. So you tend to put your
organization first and not the supposed goal of the organization.
And yeah, I don't know of any bureaucracy anywhere that
has worked to put itself out of existence, because that

(13:28):
means losing your salary, losing the salary of your team.
But if you're an international organization that is a servant
of countries and a servant of populations and your job
is to build their capacity, that is actually what you
should do. So I can imagine you could structu an
organization to do that. It's probably something where people can
only stay five or ten years and they have to

(13:49):
rotate out anyway, so it doesn't become their permanent home.
But once you allow an organization to become a permanent
home for a large bureaucracy. It's not going to work
its way out of assistance. It's going to look to grow,
because that's just what human institutions do. And in Who's case,
to grow meant throwing away essentially a lot of the

(14:11):
conflict of interests rules that they had in the past
and getting to bed with large corporations and private sector investors,
and so about twenty five percent of their budget now
is directly from or directly from private sector, and most

(14:32):
of their budget, whether from countries or private sector, is
specified so that the funder tells you what you would
do with that money. That's not how Who started. It
was supposed to be an organization where technical expertise, at
the request of countries would be used to address the
needs of those countries. It's become, through its budget, an

(14:56):
organization that follows the instructions of those who are giving
up money. And that happens because you keep thinking more
money will be good, and you're you know you're capable
of handing in the conflict of interest bit and you
won't be corrupted at sea, but of course you are,
because you know that to get refunded next year, you
have to please that funder. So when I worked in WHO,

(15:18):
I saw this growing. I started in about two thousand
and two worked there for about eight or ten years,
and this was a period particularly where private foundations became
very influential, where the probably private partnerships alongside WHO grew
up and became influential on it. And the COVID response

(15:38):
is the inevitable result of that. It was essentially restructuring
response to outbreaks in order to maximize profit through mass
vaccination forever a disease that almost really almost no one
should have been needed to be vaccinated. So the reason

(15:59):
for that, and the reason they abandoned their old guidelines
and did that was because that was what they needed
to do to please their funders. So it's WHO is
a tool of others. It's supposed to be a tool
of countries, so it should be a temporary tool until
the countries stand on their own feet. Has become a
tool of the pharmaceutical industry and biotech and those who

(16:22):
invest in it. Yeah, so I think you know Shane
Jones's variety. It is not contributing. Now, there's no reason
for it to grow because actually infectious disease mortality has
been steadily declining despite all the hype, and over the
last many decades the mortality from outbreaks and from pandemics

(16:47):
has been declining. So COVID was an outlier which very
likely was not a natural outbreak, and certainly many of
the deaths from covid iatrogenic. There's really little doubt about that.
With the mass use of drugs like rendeser bear and
very early intubation early on in the pandemic, so people panicked,

(17:11):
they do that. That happened because there was a huge
media operation to make people panic. Then the now mortality
is almost zero, and most of that is from people
gaining well one from people gaining natural immunity too, because
if you just leave it as you would treat a
common cold, then for the vast majority of the population,

(17:31):
that'll be what it is. So it was used as
a tool to please these funders. But apart from that,
there is very little in the way of out breaks astray,
the mass cholor of mortality, the plague, that yellow fever
and so on. We have very small outbreaks. Now these
are things of the past, so there's no good reason

(17:55):
for the who to be growing at all. It should
be shrinking.

Speaker 3 (17:59):
But it's not going to.

Speaker 2 (18:01):
It's not going to unless there's a radical change in
the way it's run. And it is hard to see
how that would happen because an organization that you've got
to do that change to a large extent through people
there who would be extremely resistant.

Speaker 3 (18:18):
I know that we've discussed this before from one aspect anyway,
but let me let me just raise it again. What
would be the on going back to the conflict between
Shane Jones, just to use this as an example, and journalists,
because the journalists are pretty much all the same. They're

(18:39):
the same over the over the American election as well.
They can't help themselves. But if New Zealand were to
not participate in the changes that are being made by
the World Health Organization, what would be the downside?

Speaker 2 (18:55):
None For New Zealand. It would save some money and
it would not be essentially forced to build a large
surveillance network to find viral variant and then risk you know,
being having to lock down and destroy your economy again
to assuage the needs of people in Geneva. So there

(19:19):
are plenty of diseases for New Zealanders to deal with.
Most people die of cancer, heart disease, cutting vascular disease,
et cetera. There are still significant rheumatic heart disease and
other infection based mortality in all populations, include particularly indigenous
populations around the Pacific and so on. There's plenty for

(19:41):
New Zealand to do without participating in a sort of
essentially fast this falsification of risk. So there's nothing that
wouldn't matter unless you got to a situation where the
World Bank and the IMF, who are very on board
with this agenda of who decided to punish New Zealand.

(20:04):
And New Zealand now I think has a very large
natural debt, which I think during the COVID response many countries,
so that makes you much more vulnerable to that. So
I mean, we'll come back to the US, but this
is where it'll be interesting to see whether the international
political situation has changed such that you can't be punished

(20:27):
for that, because that will take a lot of the
wind out of the sales of the pandemic.

Speaker 3 (20:31):
I don't know whether this is international or spreads wider
than New Zealand, but I've noticed that the people who
are deserving of some degree of condemnation over their behavior
and attitude toward the administration of the last few years.

(20:54):
Are the same people who are promoting and pushing hardest
for New Zealand to participate in the latest changes being
made by the Who Why would that be, do you think?

Speaker 2 (21:08):
Yeah, I think it's a range of motivations. Some people,
I think they do very well from funding from the
pharmaceutical sector who are very much behind this agenda because
they see hundreds of billions of dollars of profit in
the long term. So they're doing what they're paid for
probably or what they were. They're saying what they see

(21:30):
as the best potential for them to get paid in
the future. I think others, as we said that they
genuinely believe this story, that they just assume that these
large institutions would be telling the truth, that they have expertise,
which they don't, and that they are you know, so

(21:50):
they just go along and they're not going to stop
and think deeply, because they've all been told that anyone
who does is a right wing conspiracy theorist and they're
likely to be vilified. So they you know, if you
want a good job in global health, interational public health,
you don't stick your head out like that. And I
think others they may be realizing, they may dig down

(22:12):
that this was a mistake for whatever the reason they
went on in the first place. But it's really difficult
to admit that. If you sort of stated to your
reputation got really famous in the media, etc. On saying
one thing, it's pretty difficult to backtrack then and say, well, actually,
pandemics aren't at big risk to humankind, and you know,

(22:35):
we have much bigger things to deal with. COVID was
a huge overreaction. We should have known better, and let's
do better now that there's not many people doing that.
Most of the noise among those people is that we
should have locked down faster and more strongly, which it's
essentially saying we should destroy the economy more for longer.

(22:56):
There is no good evidence that lockdowns did anything except
slightly slow transmission. So it is different perhaps in island
states where you know you could keep it out for longer.
But now you haven't gained over the four years in
terms of all cause mortality compared to other countries that
didn't act in that way, So you're not better off

(23:18):
over the four years, and you have an economy now
that makes you very vulnerable and it is going to
be have a huge impact on your ability to manage
your nation's sealth in the future. So I think there's
not much doubt that it was probably a mistake, even
in New Zealand where there appeared to be as an

(23:39):
island you could keep everyone out and sort of pretended
the world didn't exist. But did I mention does? And
you've wracked up a lot of problems?

Speaker 3 (23:47):
Did I mention? I? No, I didn't, And I don't
think it was I don't think it was mentioned in
the last conversation we had when you were here midyear.
But they're still advertising for people to go get the job.
Oh ye, get updated, Get updated, Get updated. The signs
are out the front of the farmer.

Speaker 2 (24:07):
Distilling us as well from six months upwards here for
there is zero evidence of benefit.

Speaker 3 (24:17):
Who preys hell is responsible for that in the States.

Speaker 2 (24:21):
In the States it's officially CDC, so they have their
vaccine schedule for children and from six months up you're
expected to get a series of MR and a injection
which they know will concentrate in the over eas of
young girls and in the livers and adrenal glands of
girls and boys. Et cetera. And they know that healthy

(24:42):
boys and girls and infants have almost near zero risk
of dying of COVID sort of less than one million,
so that there is no logic to any of this
except the potential for profit and the sort of around
that the sort of people who put their reputations want
to preserve them, et cetera. So there's no public health

(25:06):
rational public health basis that you can really follow to
justify this.

Speaker 3 (25:11):
So the mRNA vaccine that accumulates in different parts of
children's bodies does or can do how much damage.

Speaker 2 (25:21):
We don't know because we don't have long term studies
on this, or even decent short term studies, so there's
no even now there are no ongoing studies that they
in adults. They after six months they lost the control group,
so we can't compare. But we know the six months
for the Maderna and Pisa trials. There was Maderna, the

(25:43):
au course mortality was the same in the control group
and the vaccinated group in Maderna. For Pisa, there were
more deaths in the vaccinated group than the control group,
so it was no effect or negative at six months.
In adults, we don't have good data on any other
age group. So for each new booster sort of type

(26:04):
in in the US where they changed to a new variant,
they test on I think is eight rats and they
see if those rats produce antibodies, and they take that
as the vaccine works, so that they don't even have
human trials on the new versions now, so we have
a passive and very flawed adverse reporting system of AIRS

(26:25):
in the US and Australian New Zealand so on have
their own. They show more high mortality and all severe
effects reported for associated with the MRA with COVID injections
then for all other vaccinations combined in the thirty years
that FAIRS and the US has been running. So that's

(26:49):
obviously a huge red flag normally, so to go and
give that sort of thing to infants who like health
infants don't die of COVID, you're almost never. But we know,
we don't know what if you take, for instance, the
accumulation of the ovaries. We know, and we knew before

(27:09):
they started injecting anyone that the liber nanoparticles accumulates in
the ovaries in rats. They've never looked at it in
humans where we assumans are same. A girl was born
with a certain number of over so that that determines
the length of their fertility period when they're an adult.
So the way the M marina vaccines work, they their

(27:30):
marinae goes into a cell and it last quite a
long time because it's not normal m RNA. It's modified.
One of their bases is modified to make it last
much longer. So the story about it. M marinae lasts
only a few days in the cell. It's true. But
this isn't that sort of m RNA. It's a modified
The US bas is modified and makes it. They did

(27:51):
that to make it stay in the cell much longer
and produce much more protein.

Speaker 3 (27:54):
And that's right, that's right. That's right from the beginning
of U from the beginning right back. And they knew it.

Speaker 2 (28:02):
So yeah, yes, So it it goes to the cell.
It's called a machine of the cell to produce a
toxic protein spike protein that the body recognizes as a
foreign protein. So it eimulates an immune reous bonse against
a protein which is expressed on that cell. So it
will kill that cell as well, and it will cause

(28:24):
some local inflammation, which is what happens when you get
cell death. So if it concentrates in the ovaries, you'll
get some local inflammation in the ovaries and some cell
death in the ovaries. If it's in the liver, the
same et cetera. That's how it works. So it's not
an unreasonable assumption that you will lose some over during

(28:45):
that period and you'll have a shorter fertility period as
an adult. We don't know that, but it's not an
unreasonable assumption. We will find out in twenty or thirty
years time when the little girls who have been just
been vaccinated now go into menopause and will see how
long they had the fertility period. Yet they're still being

(29:08):
injected in this situation, and although they are not initiate
purpose of COVID, they've all got Everyone by now has
had COVID and has a pretty good immunity. And the
CDC did studies that compared directly, you know, did you
go into hospital, did you die just after post infection immunity?

(29:30):
And you know when you get another infection, or if
you have vaccinate and you get an infection and there's
you're slightly better off with natural immunity than the vaccine,
and the vaccine on top of the natural immunity makes
almost no discernible difference. So we have all the data
that says if you've had an infection, you're highly unlikely

(29:51):
to get severely or and the vaccine won't help significantly
at all. This is a situation with everyone now. So
this is CDC data. It's published. The data on the
biodistribution going to the ovaries, et cetera is published by
fires Biointech and with the regulatory agencies when they have

(30:13):
proved the vaccines. Now they also had data from rats
on an increase in feudal animalities, very significant increase compared
to the control group in that same experiment. Yet they
recommended for pregnant women, so we've been through this period
that is actually hard to grasp as a public health
physician in terms of the recklessness with which this was

(30:38):
imposed on particularly is very vulnerable groups. Pregnant women and
young children are usually the very last ones to be
injected with a new drug, and only after years of
experience and then very careful studies. So none of that
happened normally with genetic therapeutic, which is what these are

(30:58):
and what they were classified as by Madina. You have
to do castinogenicity studies to see if it courses cancer.
You have to do teriratogenicity studies, which is what they did.
Being need to watch that in humans as well to
see if they fall cause fetal animalities. You have to
do that with a genetic therapeutic, which is what these are.
You don't have to do it with a vaccine. So

(31:20):
when they change the name to vaccine, they did away
with all the stuff that you have to do for
this sort of class of pharmaceutical, and this is acknowledged
in the TGA report from Australia, the Australian regulatory agency,
the Therapeutic Goods Administration. They acknowledged this in the report
that the name change means that they didn't need to

(31:41):
do this.

Speaker 3 (31:43):
So you.

Speaker 2 (31:45):
Can imagine if you had an existential threat from sort
of airborne and bowler, which is never going to happen,
never happened in human history, et cetera. But it's in
the movies that you might take these sorts of risks.
But it makes no sense for a virus that is
associated with death on average in Europe at the age
of about eighty to eighty three, and those people are

(32:07):
the sick ones at that age, it's not the world ones.
And that's what we faced with COVID. That's what we
knew were facing with COVID from the first quarter of
twenty twenty and has published in an answered So that
is what we're dealing with. That is what happened. I
think that has got a lot to do with why
we keep seeing this push and keep seeing this pushed,

(32:28):
rather than people sitting back and saying, this is what
we actually did, because it's a big thing to admit.

Speaker 3 (32:34):
Well, let me cut to this paragraph. Knowing fully the
impact of their actions, and you've said a couple of
times now they knew what they would, they knew what
they were doing, and they knew what they were causing.
Knowing fully the impact of their actions, who helped force
over one hundred million additional people into severe food insecurity
and poverty, up to ten million additional girls into child marriage.

(32:59):
And when you mentioned this before, I don't think you
mentioned sexual slavery.

Speaker 2 (33:04):
Well, that's what chold marriage is. Yeah, well, yeah, it's
sexual so free rape etctera. So that's you know, you
take a thirteen year old girl and you stick with
an old man, that's what you're doing. Isn't it.

Speaker 3 (33:17):
Where does the figure though? People? You know, anybody who
was being interrogative would say to you, where do you
get the figure of ten million plucked out of.

Speaker 2 (33:27):
The Yeah, that's from UNICF. That's from UNISF, the United
Nations Children Educational Furnish whatever, the official u an agency
for children. What are you U suggesting that they're trust
So that's published. No, but they are like other agencies.

(33:49):
They have a mix of people. They put out some
as did WHO, some early on, some very good data
and modeling and so on, the lightly harms of this intervention.
So you have to remember that in twenty nineteen, late
twenty nineteen, about October November, WHO put out the pandem
Influenza Recommendations, which essentially say, don't do this under no circumstances,

(34:16):
closed borders, do this sort of mass tests and trace
et cetera. So or you know, the big features of COVID,
and they point out that if you put people out
of work for seven to ten days, you're likely to
start seeing overall negative outcomes, particularly in low income people,

(34:38):
because of the harm to of the economy and their income, etcetera.
So UNISEF also, you know, they put out at the
end of or in early twenty twenty one, estimates that
were almost a quarter of a million dead children just
from lockdowns in South Asia, so India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, et cetera.
Six countries, almost a quarter million children. They are almost

(35:00):
no children are dying from COVID that the World Bank
put out estimates in low income countries, for every person
that was saved by lockdowns, probably about two people died.
One point sevent to two people died. It's the World Bank,
which is the same organization pushing the whole thing. So

(35:21):
these organizations are not that. They're large organizations and they
have some people in them who are trying to work
against the tide and actually get sensible data out You me,
and sorry, no, I was just going to say, I mean,
it's not made up. These are say ten million girls.
That's because if you close schools and you impoverished families,

(35:43):
particularly in South Asia, Subsaharan Africa and South America, then
we know that a lot of girls will come out
of school and they will be married off for various
reasons including the family doesn't feel that they can afford
to keep them anymore. And so this is what happens.
This is well recognized. You know, there are organizations like

(36:06):
as a Child Not Bride pre COVID that were quite
prominent in trying to reduce child marriage and noting that
poverty is a big driver and keeping kids in school
is a big way of stopping it. We heard nothing
from them, so these figures aren't And this is where

(36:28):
I say, you know, this wasn't unexpected. It was known
that this sort of response would have these sorts of outcomes,
so it was intentional. Then the response was intentional, and
they knew that it would have this collateral damage, and
they knew that the disease they were doing it for,
so in Sub Saharan Africa would kill very very few

(36:49):
people because half the population there is under twenty, essentially children,
and only about less than one percent of populations over
seventy five, which is the high risk of COVID. Yeah,
so it was intentional to do these lockdowns.

Speaker 3 (37:08):
What did you say was the morality level of the
people who you're discussing And you can stretch it wider
than that in the field, but that they know what's
going to happen, they know what they're doing, but they
do it anyway. Where is the morality level there or

(37:30):
is there?

Speaker 2 (37:30):
No, doesn't seem very high. So we can all do this.
I mean, we can all talk ourselves into we can
convince ourselves if we really try, that something that is
bad is necessary or good. And you know, unfortunately we
have to do this because and you can pretend that

(37:51):
the virus is an existential threat, and it's pretty easy
to do that because you sort of get on board
with your colleagues and you see each other up and
here we are saving the words from a deadly virus
as we kept hearing, you know, twenty four to seven
and all that stuff. So you just you can get
yourself into this mindset, particularly in groups, where you can

(38:13):
then convince yourself as a group that you know, oh gee,
there's going to be some damage, but you're saving the world.
And if you stop, then you sit on a mountain
and you stop and you think carefully through it, you
realize that this is rubbish. But as long as you
stay in the group and you keep seeing each other along,
then I think you can sort of do this. And

(38:36):
so you know, it's how crowds work. And well, I'm
not trying to go down. I'm not trying to go
down a conspiracy path. But considering that there are people
involved at the very top of the money making tree
that this is who believe that the world is overpopulated,
but they have contributed greatly to this scenario. The negative

(38:59):
side of it, is there any natural conclusion or possible
natural conclusion we can come to over that or you
could draw that. But if if you're trying to kill people,
I think there's better ways of doing it if if
you're you know, another effect of this is that there's
a big production in reproductive health, so that there there's

(39:21):
an increase in birth rate in Sub Saharan Africa as well.
So this isn't going to reduce the world's population overall.
Is probably going to increase it because poverty tends to
lead to more children born as a sort of insurance policy,
and so only because you can't access contraception, et cetera.
So I don't think this will reduce the world's population.

(39:44):
I think it will make it much much poorer. But hold,
I mean there is a conspiracy. Of course, there's conspiracy
is some people getting together and making a plan and
not telling other people about it. That's what a conspiracy is.
And that's that's how you do business. If you're running

(40:05):
a company, if you're running Pisa or something, and you
in maternity, you come up with a few other companies
of a way of making selling a lot of stuff,
which is your job as CEO, and making a lot
of money out of it for your investors and shareholders.
You're not going to go and tell everyone, Okay, we're
going to do this because we want to make lots

(40:25):
of money. We want to make hundreds of billions of
dollars from selling a vacci You say we're saving the world.
So of course there's a conspiracy in that there is
people trying to make lots of money out of global
health and they're not telling everyone exactly what. They're not
putting it in those words. They're not telling everyone they're
there to make money. And for the shareholders, they're telling

(40:46):
everyone they're trying to save us. So but they are
trying to make money. That's a job. So it's a
conspiracy because they're running a business. That's say, you run
a business, you have plans that you don't fully divulge
to others, to the world. So I think you can
explain this as a huge sort of business case that

(41:08):
was completely devoid of morals and any breaks on conflict
of interest, et cetera, and was facilitated by these large
agencies that have become dependent on these same private entities.
So of course there are people who people among these
who want to have less people in the world, And

(41:30):
in a way I can sort of understand that. Wouldn't
it be nice to go to the beaches not crowded,
wouldn't be nice not to have traffic jams every time
you go to work. Great, you know, more green fields,
et cetera. So that's a nice thing. But it's also
nice to have humans. And here we are, we got
eight billion humans, and humans are great. So you know,
people can say to you they'd like to have less

(41:52):
people in the world, and that's not a bad thing
in itself to say, as long as they're not saying
and therefore we want to kill lots of other people
to get there. And I think if you wanted to
do that, you would have a better virus than SARS
kobe to and you would probably go further along the
path of toxic responses to it. So I don't think

(42:17):
that that was the primary driver at all. I think
it was more making a lot of money, and there
are some other things in the background. There is a
push for things like central bank digital currency, which is
not I mean, it's not a conspiracy there the central
banks and someone say they want this. A Bank of
Indudicial Settlements says it wants this CARST and has talked

(42:37):
about it their head. To do that, you need people
ideally to be poorer and to be more dependent on
government and to have you know, digital ideas and digital
transactions that you can then use.

Speaker 3 (42:56):
To sort of control their lives.

Speaker 2 (42:59):
Their lives and oh, you know, that's that's what they
say they want central bank digital currency for it will
allow you to control how much people travel, how what
they eat, where they go, who they meet. So I
think there are a lot of people who don't just
want money. They want this sort of fascist state globally.

(43:20):
And that's always been the case in human existence, is
why would it go away? And COVID was and this
whole pandemic agenda is a huge opportunity to do that
because it provides the fear that you need to make
people do things that they wouldn't normally do. So in
the nineteen eighties in Australia, they tried to bring in

(43:43):
a digital National Idea just National Idea card, and there
was a huge outcry and it's just killed the whole idea.
They're doing it now and no unblinks because they've managed
to get people's mindset to think that the government is
saving them from existential crises, whether it's it's pandemics, or
it's a climate crisis, or its terrorism whatever. And they

(44:08):
need to allow the government to know who where they
are and where they're spending their money and what they're
doing all the time so that they can be kept
safe from all these things. And I think that is
somewhat deliberate, or is quite deliberate, because people want to
do that in order to have control over others and
even further concentrate wealth, etc. And it's a sort of feudalism.

(44:31):
That's the normal way that human society works, unless you
constantly fight against it. Well, it can only for him.
This is what they talk about essentially with their Great Reset,
is essentially stakeholder capitalism, is essentially feudalism.

Speaker 3 (44:45):
Well, we said we would revert to the American election
briefly at least, and that would appear to be the
right time to do it considering that you were just
talking of the CBDC, and let's throw into the mix
the fact that Trump has made it very clear that
he will ban it and will not allow it while

(45:07):
he is any position to stop it. What comment would
you make on that? I think it's great, Yeah, not
only any great, fantastic.

Speaker 2 (45:18):
I mean it's it doesn't solve the problem completely. Obviously.
They essentially did what you want to do with CBDC.
They did that, for instance in Canada during the Truckees effort,
and they you know that, they people just had their
bank accounts closed. And so it turns out Millennia Trump
had a bank account closed in twenty yep, so did

(45:41):
Baron Trump. I mean, what on earth? So that they're
already trying to make it hard to live financially for people,
but we don't need CBDC. There's a great short video
out probably not on YouTube but on other channels. So
it's the Minneapolis Fed Federal Reserve chairman talking about this,

(46:06):
saying like, why on earth would Americans want this? We
manage perfectly fine with their finances. Now, why do you
want the government to be able to control everything you do?
It makes no sense from a public viewpoint is we don't.
It's not saving us from anything. It's just imposing more

(46:27):
more control over us. So why would anyone?

Speaker 3 (46:30):
So who was that? You said, Indianapolis? It's a Minnieapolis
Reserve Bank. Reserve Bank. Yeah, so it's floating around on
the internet. It's in a few times. It's a good video.

Speaker 2 (46:43):
He's just arguing, sensibly, saying, why would people you know,
you can't well population, you want this imposed on you?

Speaker 3 (46:51):
Well, the answer, the answer is, of course you can
make something like that, and they and they do make
it appealing because you don't have to. I mean, the
next the next thing would be that you'll have a
chip in your hand. That'll happen one day. Yeah, it's
you don't need so you'd never lose your keys, you never,
you don't have to worry about anything and just carry

(47:13):
on and life's easy.

Speaker 2 (47:14):
To go to the supermarket. You just wave your hand
over the reader and there you go.

Speaker 3 (47:20):
Well, who wouldn't who wouldn't wanted them? And my response
immediately is look at the look at the change in
that election we've just well just mentioned of. I only
heard this morning that there was a swing of eleven
points for women under thirty to Trump.

Speaker 2 (47:43):
Yeah, young people very strongly voted and now swung in
that direction, which is really interesting actually, and not I
think what the other side expected. So well, the only
shift in African Americans, a shift in Latino voters, etc.
Because you know, it's it's been an interesting time in
the US. I'm very surprised actually there. I come for

(48:05):
a number of reasons. But like many people, I thought
Trump was terrible the first time he was elected because
I listened to the media, and the media had nothing
good whatsoever to say about this person. If you spend
the time and you listen to one two three hour
long long form interviews with him, then you get a

(48:27):
very different picture of who this person is. And you know,
I don't know why the media is so against him,
but if there's someone like that, is that important you
should sit down and actually make up your own minds
and not have your mind made up by someone else.

Speaker 3 (48:44):
Well, it's called it's called group thinkers, you know, and
it has quite a history now.

Speaker 2 (48:50):
But it's worse than that. This was propaganda, isn't it.
It's I mean, we were told constantly this person was
far right, racists, misogynists, whatever. But if you any anti abortion,
anti this, and anti that, and if you listen to him,
he actually got pretty irrational approaches to these issues, but

(49:15):
they almost never get reported in the media. And he
is someone who talks off the cuff a lot, which
is dangerous for a politician, but is also somewhat refreshing.
We're so used to people just having Telly prompters and
so on, or saying what their focus group told him
to say, so sometimes he says things in a way

(49:36):
that you sort of think, oh, no, why do you
say that way, because people take it the wrong way.
But if you put it in the context of a
half hour hour long interview, then it starts to make sense.
And I think a lot of people saw this because people,
and probably much more than news in but the US
populace has turned massively away from mainstream media, and so

(50:00):
that people listen to podcasts. I will listen to the
podcast with Joe Rogan or with Tucker Carlson or something,
and they'll hear a Trump or a put In or
Kamala Harris. If you'll do it, or et cetera, talk
for a long time, and you can start to get
an idea of what they're really thinking, whereas you can't

(50:21):
do that by a journalist who is and there's about
ninety seven percent of US journalists are on one side
of politics and three percent on the other. When they
pull them and journalists openly say now that their job
is advocacy, not reporting the news, so that they see
their job as trying to turn the country into what

(50:44):
they consider as a better place, so they propagandas so,
most of what we get now on mainstream media in
the US is propaganda and not news. And I think
people have which is a refreshing part of this. People
have realized that on a very large scale.

Speaker 3 (51:01):
They have in the States obviously, but not so much
elsewhere We've still got the same. Yeah, simple journalists I'm
trying to be as kind as I can who don't
understand how it could have happened and continue to write
the crap that they have written all along. I am

(51:22):
thinking of one or two in particular.

Speaker 2 (51:24):
Yeah, I mean it happened because this was a person
who can actually articulate policy at length. You know, take
Charlotteviell or something he did not say. Just good people,
both sides at Charlotteviell. You know, this is something I
only found two or three years later. Yeah, I mean
he said he specifically excluded white supremacists from that, and

(51:46):
so it's the opposite of how it was reported. People
have seen so much of that here that I think
the media has just lost credibility. But you know, you
had one side that spent only a third of the money,
but who had very long speeches and very long interviews
and articulated a wide policy alternatives, they said what they're

(52:12):
planning to do. You had another side. If there are
clear policies I missing, and I think people are struggling
to the people struggle to figure out what the actual
policy is apart from trying to keep Trump out. But
that's not a policy that you're going to went on.
So yeah, they didn't articulate any policy, and they teleproms

(52:34):
are broke down so so and that they clearly did
not tell the truth to the American public about the
state of the previous president and et cetera. So you know,
I can't see how journalists struggle with that. The left
of politicies and what the left used to be. But
if if you're a sort of pro Democrat or pro

(52:54):
republic whatever, it's hard to argue I think with what
I just said, because that's blatantly in front of everyone.

Speaker 3 (53:01):
Now, before you tell me that you've had enough, I've
got a couple of other things, so we should we
should move on at least briefly two, two or three
other matters, if I may, I want to mention Jay Baticharia,
one of the three medical people who came up with the.

Speaker 2 (53:22):
Great Barrington.

Speaker 3 (53:23):
Yes, and at first of all, I didn't understand what
on earth the Great Barrington thing was. And then once
I got a grasp, of course I.

Speaker 2 (53:31):
Knew he was just orthodox public health. Well there's a
mother Kodolf and symmetric upture, and they didn't come up
with anything new, which is why it's so important that
they just articulated clearly orthodox public health exactly.

Speaker 3 (53:45):
Now, I had cold Off on the podcast fairly early
in the piece, and wish i'd had Battacharia, but I
never tried. But I see that he was just awarded
a major international scientific prize. You see that.

Speaker 2 (53:58):
Yeah, I can't remember what it was, but I did.
I know Jay, he's a very nice person. Yes, these
people should be getting prizes because they stood up at
considerable cost. Yeah, and they were just insisting on telling
the truth. They were talking orthodox public health. Essently, they

(54:19):
were talking about what we knew is true for a
lot of it's just common sense. You don't even have
to be a public health physician to know that if
you massively impoverish people and close down economy, then that's
going to make health generally worse in the future. I
mean that's pretty obvious. So and that is why that's

(54:39):
what the Great Barons in Declace is about, is just
you will cause more harm if you close down the
health system, closed down the economy for something like this,
rather than just concentrating on the people who are actually
at risk and addressing their needs.

Speaker 3 (54:54):
The Australian COVID Inquiry report now the risk of treading
on Ramesh the Cursed Toes. He's declared it not fit
for purpose. Have you read it. I haven't read it yet.
No report on it.

Speaker 2 (55:09):
I think it's it's much like the others. It says
should have done more stuff, more quickly, and it doesn't
go into the the harms I've seen.

Speaker 3 (55:21):
Short summary, We've we've got we've got something. I think
we've still got something underway here. It's it's hard to
tell sometimes, but it's it's going to fall into the
same category, and there'll be a follow up. I think,
I trust that might might might be might Get honest,
do you think that one day the people who are

(55:43):
and I'm thinking particularly of ex prime ministers and the
and they're lot, will be recognized appropriately for what they did.

Speaker 2 (55:56):
I think they will eventually, because when people look back
and do their studies on this in thirty or forty
years time, Yeah, that there there's this big dip in
the economy, there's an increase in debt that was see
that as we know now. I mean all of course
what tality wasn't any better, is generally worse in countries
that had strict measures compared to those that didn't. And

(56:19):
there is this huge impact on basic human rights and
so on that the world been fighting for for so
long and then just went backwards so many steps. So
I think in the future it'll be recognized as a
huge mistake. I doubt that it will directly impact any
of these people. I don't think anyone political is going

(56:39):
to go to jail or something for this, and I'm
not sure that. I mean, some of them are actually extreme,
and the one you're talking about is recognized as fairly
extreme globally. But politicians were in a really difficult situation
with this, and I think we have to recognize this
put yourself in their shoes. The whole media was against it,

(57:01):
and the media was on the side of big farm totally,
along with hundreds of billions of dollars of effort. And
if those Jordan said, as Prince of Sweden did they
weren't going to do this. Every death is pinned on them,
so it was likely political suicide. Having said that, I
didn't see any leaders sit down in front of the
nation for a couple of hours and just talk through

(57:24):
like these are the facts. This is the age people dying,
and this is the comorbidities. If we close down, we're
not going to help all these other people, and we're
going to do this huge economic harm and that's going
to mean longer waiting lists and less money for cancer treatment,
less money for heart disease, less money for kids' illnesses, etc.

(57:45):
In the future. So what are you doing. If we
had that conversation and there was a politician anywhere brave
enough to do that, I suspect that a lot of
populations would have sided with them. But that aside. You know,
I think they were just trying to avoid being classed
in the media and by a lot of the population

(58:06):
who were just brainwashed as murderers. I mean, maybe I'm
being over nice. I don't know, but I think that
sort of explains why so many went along with it
and very few politicians stood up.

Speaker 3 (58:19):
I think it reflects on the politicians or the standard
of politicians that we now accept in the main.

Speaker 2 (58:25):
It certainly does that. Yeah, and just I know Australian
politicians were speakings in similar that, including that, you know
your recent Prime minister. Their career politicians they haven't run
a business, they haven't run a farm, they haven't worked
in a law practice for thirty years before they go

(58:46):
into politics or medicine whatever. So they go through, they
come out of high school, they go into university, they
joined student politics, they joined whatever party in that politics
in the university, and that's their career for life is
just being a politician. And really that's the last person

(59:08):
who you would want to run your country. You know,
you've just you've no idea. You've just reminded me of something.
There was there was an article, there was a commentary
piece written by a university professor here with regard to
Jacinda going and giving advice to Karmala. Right, No, this

(59:29):
is this is true, not fiction, not fiction. Apparently it's true.
There's a picture of the two of them together, and
et cetera. It's just occurred to me. We know that you,
Sinda worked in a fish and chip shop. Apparently Carmela
didn't work in McDonald's or no one can, no one
can prove it. They're stroking to find a record.

Speaker 3 (59:51):
Do you do you think maybe that gave her a
hint by saying, look, it stood be in great stead
having worked in a fish shop. Maybe you worked in
McDonald's or something along the way.

Speaker 2 (01:00:04):
I suspect they're are told to try to identify, at
least with ordinary people. A lot of interesting you know,
it's interesting looking at the all the celebrities socided with.

Speaker 3 (01:00:16):
Yeah, mostly for megabugs.

Speaker 2 (01:00:18):
Yeah, they were paid lots and lots of money, Yes, exactly,
so so that they're not they're not people who apparently
were there because of this is what they really believed in,
or if they did, there was a very fortuitous that
they're getting paid to stand by their belief. Again, I
think that people saw this people recognize that they didn't

(01:00:40):
know I think at that time how much people are
being paid. But they can see that people have not
really you know, it comes back to actually articulating policies
and explaining why you're there versus just being there and
jumping up and down and saying never Trump one side
ran this very shallow campaign because we think how journalists

(01:01:01):
can't recognize that is really interesting because it means that
they are really they've lost the ability to think rationally
to a large extent.

Speaker 3 (01:01:10):
Indeed, look to to put paid to this podcast. Let
me quote you from the article to arrest the degradation
of health, human rights and sovereignty, we need an exit
strategy from unethical public health. This will require an exit
strategy from approaches mired in conflict of interest and an

(01:01:32):
emphasis on evidence rather than corporate profit. And for the
sake of both donor country taxpayers and the recipients of
their support, we need an exit strategy from external dependency
in order to achieve health independence. This is what sustainability
and equity means, words of which global health profiteers are
so fond. These changes need to be sect a wide,

(01:01:56):
not just the who so what you're saying is that
the who certainly needs to be changed dramatically, but so
does the whole sector.

Speaker 2 (01:02:07):
Is that possible. It's possible. Comes back to what we're
saying near the start of the discussion that the global
health industry is just growing and growing more rapidly than us,
probably than it has before, and it should be going
in the other direction. We should be building capacity in

(01:02:28):
countries that struggle technically so they don't need external help anymore.
And that is the supposedly the whole point of foreign aid.
And this is the standard left or right wing, but
certainly left wing thinking around public health two decades ago.
You don't want a colonialist situation where you have people

(01:02:51):
from rich countries having all the expertise and going and
telling people in poor countries what to do. You want
to build our world based much more equally, where all
countries have adequate capacity and can manage their own health
in the way that they see fit. And that is

(01:03:12):
what we are supposed to be building in international public health,
or we were. Is the opposite of having very strong
central institutions that have the ability to dictate policy about
whether it's vaccination or lockdowns or whatever. And it's the

(01:03:33):
opposite of growing these central institutions, they should be getting
smaller and smaller as countries get on their own feet
and do things themselves. And I don't think people can
really argue with that from any point of view, except
if you really are on the train that believes that
the world is facically increasing existential threats and we're all

(01:03:56):
going to die if we don't all give up our
rights to some central bureaucuct to save us. And if
you're on that train still, then it is properly hard
to get you off it. There's no rational basis for
believing that we are generally living longer and pandemics, outbreaks,

(01:04:16):
infectious cities outbreaks are getting less deadly overall and are
not getting more frequent. We're getting better at detecting them,
but they're not killing more people. So it's illogical to
believe that. It doesn't fit historically, it doesn't fit epidemiologically.
If people custominds back to twenty nineteen, it doesn't fit

(01:04:37):
properly with their experience at all. So people need to
sort of undo the propaganda a bit and go back
to that mountain to think on their own and think
through what is actually going on and that they will
realize that there is no good reason to keep growing
these bureaucracies. That poverty was going down before COVID, etc.

(01:05:00):
Countries were doing better, the most African countries had rapidly
increasing GDPs or that was reversed during COVID. The world
was getting much better. We've had this huge step backwards.
But you could argue that is because these institutions need
for surviving growth is such that they are now really
poisoning the world and poisoning the countries that they were

(01:05:23):
supposedly supporting.

Speaker 3 (01:05:25):
I read this morning, it was sent to me from
London an article from the Times on the top four
I think it was airlines with the luxury section sector,
and Emirates and Singapore Airlines and whatever else. And they've

(01:05:48):
all refitted or in the process of refitting, and the
luxury level has gone up rapidly in first class, business
class and in economy plus. And I just thought earlier
on when you were talking about the travel business class
travel for these people who who fly around between Nairobi

(01:06:10):
and Geneva and what have you, that this was even
more incentive for them to maintain their positions and grow
the company.

Speaker 2 (01:06:17):
Oh yeah, and it's people think the foreign age is
going to help you desperate people in distant villages. A
lot of it is going to support these people, and
it's extremely difficult when you're in that situation which I've
been in, to get out of it because it is
such a nice and interesting life, you know, people dream

(01:06:38):
about this. So yeah, there's all sorts of reasons that
people in these organizations think of to maintain that situation.

Speaker 3 (01:06:48):
David, been a pleasure. Thank you, always grateful and I
hope that we I hope we see you again soon.

Speaker 2 (01:06:57):
Yeah, I hope. So thanks late, and I have a
good Christmas early soon.

Speaker 3 (01:07:00):
Oh listen, I forgot, I'm sorry. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year,
and stay well. Thank you, thank you. Now I'm doing

(01:07:25):
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 off because you've heard it,

(01:07:48):
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 re listening to them myself,
I get more out of them and I see things,

(01:08:09):
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 replay series. Add on February five,

(01:08:33):
we shall return with fresh content in the meantime. At
any stage us drop us on notes if you've got
comment that you'd like to make later at news talks
AB dot co dot enzend and Caroline at newstalksb dot
co dot nz and we shall talk soon.

Speaker 1 (01:08:57):
Thank you for more from News Talks AB. Listen live
on air or online, and keep our shows with you
wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio
Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!

The Breakfast Club

The Breakfast Club

The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!

The Joe Rogan Experience

The Joe Rogan Experience

The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2025 iHeartMedia, Inc.