Leighton Smith Podcast #284 - May 14th 2025 - Dr Pierre Kory - The Leighton Smith Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from news talks it B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of the now, the Leyton
Smith Podcast powered by news talks it B.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to podcasts two eighty four for May fourteen, twenty
twenty five. Deceits, corruption, blackmail, threats, cowardice, dismissal, just a
few words to indicate how the world works. One such
example concerns doctor Pierre Corey, who was in the thick
of it for four years or longer, but still not

(00:50):
entirely free of it. I quote you a few lines
from his book The War on iver Mecdon. I soon
discovered that the corruption and deceit was hardly limited to
the pharmaceutical space. The entire medical industrial complex, including our
governmental and international regulatory agencies, big farmer, public and private
healthcare systems and hospital networks, medical schools and their journals

(01:14):
had been collectively captured. Now to say that per Cory
is a generous man is an understatement. He is very
generous with his time. His attitude to just about everything
is positive and giving. Is a very good speaker, and
we shall talk with him soon, but just to exemplify
the fact that he is not on his own with

(01:36):
what he has been through, and I'm sure most people
listening will be familiar with it in some way, but
to show that there are others who are involved in
trying to improve the world, I suppose let me refer
to Mary and Demasi, an Australian science writer. She was
with ABC Radio and Sydney or maybe television or maybe both,

(01:59):
but she was for a considerable period of time, but
she went independent and I've referenced to her be for
she doesn't do interviews because she doesn't want to who
she wants to retain her independence. I think is the
way that she put it to me. Anyway, Merk rigged
Gardasil trials to conceal Harm's court documents reveal and this

(02:21):
was published by her just a few days ago. In
what would become one of the most explosive pharmaceutical lawsuits
in US history, Roby versus Merk, centered on the Gardasil
HPV vaccine and is set to resume in Los Angeles
in September of this year. At the core of the
case are allegations that Merk misrepresented the safety profile of Gardasil,

(02:45):
allegations now supported by powerful evidence. A newly unsealed expert
report from Danish physician and world renowned research methodologist doctor
Peter C. Gooshki, Well that's my interpretation, submitted as part
of the pre trial motion, underpins the claims against Merk.

(03:05):
His three hundred and fifty page forensic analysis, now part
of the official court record, lays bare a chilling narrative
of clinical trial rigging, regulatory failure, and global deception. According
to Weergotski, Merk distorted its clinical trial data so thoroughly
that the results were rendered scientifically meaningless. Gotshki's assessment is

(03:30):
stark and unequivocal. The Mirk sponsored trials cannot be used
to properly assess the harms of the vaccines, he writes,
adding that the company squandered the opportunity to legitimately study
the safety of Gardasil. After examining one hundred and twelve
thousand pages of regulatory documents, Gotshki concluded that Mirk manipulated

(03:53):
its data to such an extent that it would be difficult,
if not impossible, for any independent scientist or even government
regulators to accurately assess the vaccines harm. It now raises
the fundamental question, were millions of adolescents misled into consenting

(04:13):
to a vaccine whose true safety risks were deliberately obscured.
Now there is more to the article, but it's not
the point of today's podcast. But that's just one example.
Here's a second, The Crisis of Unreliable Science, a pharmacologist
call for radical reform. Each year, biomedical scientists pump out

(04:39):
about a million new papers, but a troubling truth hides
in plain sight. Much of this work cannot be replicated.
Far from a small glitch, this is a colossal crisis,
squandering billions, eroding faith in science, and stalling genuine breakthroughs.
In an interview with Chemical and Engineering News, pharmacologist Zaba Zavo,

(05:02):
a professor at the University of Freiburg, Switzerland, confronts this
chaos head on previewing his recently published book Unreliable. His
verdict the scientific system is fractured beyond repair, and band
aid fixes won't cut it. Nothing short of a revolution
will do. But there is more, and it goes back

(05:24):
a little further, just to show that there's nothing really
new about from the book Betrayers of Truth, which I
think is about fifty years old now or thereabouts. Fraud
and de Seit in the Halls of Science by William
Broad and Nicholas Wade, and chapter two is deceit in history.
Through experimental science, we have been able to learn all
these facts about the natural world, triumphing over darkness and ignorance,

(05:47):
to classify the stars and to estimate their masses, composition distances,
and velocities, to classify living species, and to unravel their
genetic relations. These great accomplishments of experimental science were achieved
by men who had in common only a few things.
They were honest and actually made the observations they recorded,

(06:10):
and they published the results of their work in a
form permitting others to duplicate the experiment or observation. So
says the Berkeley Physics Course, an influential text that has
been used across the United States to impress cottage students
with both the substance and tradition of modern physics. As
with non scientific systems. As with non scientific systems of belief, however,

(06:35):
the elements insisted on most strongly are often those with
the least factual reliability. The great scientists of the past
were not all so honest, and they did not always
obtain the experimental results they reported. Claudius Ptolemy, known as
the greatest astronomer of antiquity, did most of his observing

(06:56):
not at night on the coast of Egypt, but during
the day in the great Library of Alexandria, where he
appropriated the work of a Greek astronomer and proceeded to
call it his own. There's more, but we'll finish with
the last, and obviously the most recent. The American physicist
Robert Millikan won the Nobel Prize for being the first

(07:17):
to measure the electric charge of an electron. But Millican
extensively misrepresented his work in order to make his experimental
results seem more convincing than was in fact the case.
So there's some examples of the fact that we might
be believing things that aren't true even in this day

(07:40):
and age. In fact, I think it's fair to say
even more in this day and age. However, that is
not the case. I believe with doctor Pierre Cory. The
problem with his issues lies with the opposition to what
he has produced. I believe that they're the ones with
the problems and if anybody from the medical profession or

(08:03):
the scientific world has different opinions that they feel strongly
about that, I'd love to hear from you with full
respect and hear what you have to say and where
you disagree with what you're about to hear, I think
that that would be a fine thing. Latent at Newstalks
ADB dot co dot Nz we'll hear from doctor Corey in.

Speaker 3 (08:26):
Just a moment.

Speaker 2 (08:34):
Buccolan is a natural oral vaccine in a tablet form
called Bacterial Nice Safe. It'll boost your natural protection against
bacterial infections in your chest and throat. A three day
course of seven Bucklan tablets will help your body build
up to three months of immunity against bugs which cause
bacterial cold symptoms. So who can take buccolan well, the

(08:55):
whole family from two years of age and upwards. A
course of Bucclan tablets offers cost effective and safe protection
from colds and chills. Protection becomes effective a few days
after you take buccolan and lasts for to three months
following the three day course. Buccolan can be taken throughout
the cold season, over winter, or all the year round.
And remember buckelan is not intended as an alternative to

(09:18):
influenza vaccination, but may be used along with the flu
vaccination for added protection. And keep in mind that millions
of doses have been taken by Kiwis for over fifty years.
Only available from your pharmacist. Always read the label and
users directed, and see your doctor if systems persist. Farmer Broker, Auckland,

(09:46):
Layton Smith. Ivermectin is a dirty word in the media.
It doesn't work. It's a deadly horse steawormer, prescribed and
promoted as you'll be called a right wing quack and
be banned from social media or lose your license to
practice medicine. And yet entire countries wiped out the virus
with it, and more than ninety five studies now show

(10:09):
it to be unequivocally effective in preventing and treating COVID nineteen.
Ask you isulved this question? If it didn't work, why was
there a coordinated global campaign to cancel it? What is
the truth about this decades old Nobel Prize winning medication. Now,
the words I've just quoted are from the inside cover
of the book The War on Ivermectin. It was published

(10:33):
in twenty twenty three, and it was sold all over
the world. To say that it's worth reading is an
understatement of major proportion. But I had trouble finding a copy,
at least one that I could buy immediately. I only
had a few days notice. Subtitled The Medicine that Saved
millions and could have entered the pandemic, its author is

(10:54):
as you'll discover a fascinating individual, doctor per Corey. It's
a pleasure to finally get to talk with.

Speaker 3 (10:59):
You, Leaton. My pleasure as well. Thanks for having me.

Speaker 2 (11:03):
We're doing this between golf games.

Speaker 3 (11:05):
I gather exactly I'm on vac but.

Speaker 4 (11:09):
I wanted to make time for you. I think it's
an important conversation.

Speaker 2 (11:11):
Always, well, you certainly do your fair share of media,
so so I want to start just with we'll jump
around a little bit. I actually we'll jump around a lot.
It's my podcast. But yeah, I want to start with
a little experience that you had because this this intrigued
me with a political legend, and this comes under the

(11:35):
heating right at the right near the beginning of the book,
where you are talking about old Pierre as opposed to
New Pierre. But old Pierre was a fascinating character before
he changed. So who was old Pierre?

Speaker 3 (11:50):
Oh boy? Yeah, So that was that was the opening
of my book.

Speaker 4 (11:54):
Well really described, you know, my kind of awakening in
COVID and so compared to what I believed and what
I thought were was the truth to what I came
to believe. Uh, it created an all in a new Pier.
So the old Pierre, as I describe it, the old
Pierre read the New York Times and thought it was

(12:15):
the arbiter of truth.

Speaker 3 (12:17):
And if you really wanted to know.

Speaker 4 (12:18):
What was going on, you read the New York Times
and you would substitute whatever your main major daily newspaper
is in New Zealand. But that's the quote unquote paper
of record in the United States. I read that since
I was six. I believed in the high impact medical journals.
I thought only the best science and scientists published there.

(12:39):
I believed in our healthcare public health agencies. I thought
only the best science and scientists would form those opinions
and give that kind of guidance I trusted. I don't
think I really questioned mainstream media. I kind of felt
like they're just reporting on stories, and that's what was

(12:59):
going on, and I was just very basically trusting in
the institutions of society, and that was a world that
I lived in, and I thought every thing was I
don't want to say normal, but I just that was
my frame of reference for the world I lived in.

Speaker 3 (13:15):
And lady, you want to ask me what the new
Pierre is.

Speaker 2 (13:19):
Well, let's put it. Let's put it this way. The
title of the book is The War on Either Migdon,
and it just came to me as I was reading,
and I thought a good subtitle would be The Education
of Pierre Corey, Yes, because.

Speaker 3 (13:36):
Because it really does describe a journey for sure.

Speaker 2 (13:39):
So what about the new peer?

Speaker 4 (13:42):
I mean, the new Pierre has come to learn that
what the old Pierre believed is simply not true. And
I hate going like dark or negative thoughts so quickly.
I mean, the new Pierre has come to realize that
the old Pierre's impressions and perceptions of the world were
simply not based in fact.

Speaker 3 (14:02):
They were based in perception.

Speaker 4 (14:03):
And you know, I became very inspired and challenge by COVID,
and from the get go, before even the hit us shores,
me and my colleagues were.

Speaker 3 (14:14):
Starting to study look at this.

Speaker 4 (14:16):
You know, I was a pulmonary and critical care physician,
you know, very high up in academia in the United States.
I was the chief of the Critical care service as
well as the director of the ICU at a major
academic medical center here at the University of Wisconsin, huge
research funded institution, and so I was in charge of
our initial COVID response. And I was doing that while

(14:39):
studying the disease that was again it was a pulmonary
and critical care disease that was coming at us. And
that began, you know, three or four or five years
now of deep study, talking to doctors, reading pre prints,
you know, reading everything I could, and then also just
keenly observing various therapies, how the variants were changing, how

(15:00):
people became ill, because it wasn't you know, it's a
similar disease, but the variants did change and things became
more difficult than less difficult.

Speaker 3 (15:09):
Does various change.

Speaker 4 (15:09):
And so I've been immersed in the science of COVID
and particularly the ivermactin, you know, so I became I
would consider myself one of the clinical experts in the
use of ivermactin in.

Speaker 3 (15:20):
COVID, and so I knew the truth about ivermactin.

Speaker 2 (15:24):
How did that end into your life?

Speaker 4 (15:27):
Yeah, So what happened was is when I first bonded
with my colleague Paul Marris, so he and I were
good friends. We shared a lot of research into IVY
vitamin C, so we'd been friendly and interacted, and he's
a very prominent physician, so he was the most published
practicing critical care medicine doctor in the history of our specialties,

(15:51):
very very famous, well known. He and I become friends
because we did neutral research on a topic, and so
people reached out to him because the governments were not
coming up with treatment protocols.

Speaker 3 (16:01):
They were just saying like stay.

Speaker 4 (16:02):
Home until your lips turned blue when you got to
the hospital. They didn't do anything but like oxygen and
mentally and Thailand all orgacito minifin. I mean, it was
absolutely outrageous that no one was trying to treat this disease.
And there are all these arguments, there's no studies to
show you how to treat it, so basically do nothing.
It was just brazenly absurd reasoning. And so we started

(16:25):
to study various therapies and we came up with a
hospital protocol and so some people, prominent people asked Paul
to form a group to put out protocols. So we
formed a nonprofit organization called the FLCCC Alliance, and we
started to post protocols first in the hospital. We did
not have an early treatment protocol for another six months.

Speaker 3 (16:48):
But what Paul did was very clever.

Speaker 4 (16:50):
We were following the data on various therapeutics you could
use as now patient, and we'd had this chart and
he would put like green, yellow, and red lights, you know,
in terms of how much the evidence was showing support
for various therapies, and iver mactin was always on that
chart with a question mark because we'd heard some things
that ivermectin may be effective, but we had no data,

(17:11):
we had no science, no trials. And it was really
October of twenty twenty, probably what is six seven months
into the pandemic, when all of a sudden, a series
of studies from various places around the world started coming
out showing this incredible efficacy of ivermactin. I granted they
were small studies, but there's nothing wrong with a small study,

(17:32):
because what a small study can't do is it can't
detect small benefits. But when a small study detects large benefits,
you have a lot of difficulty explaining those ways. And
so we were seeing these immense benefits come out from
these studies, and Paul brought it to our attention in
the group, and we put it into a protocol. We
had an early treatment protocol. We added many other medicines,

(17:55):
you know, subsequent to that. But that's really what happened.
And when Paul, when those first few trials, Paul picked
up on that signal, I said, I'm going to write
a review paper on all of the emerging evidence of
IBA in COVID. And it was a really hard paper
to write. For one reason, laden is that every time
I was about to finish it and uploaded to a

(18:16):
preprint server or submitted to a journal, another study would
come out. And it seemed like every week there was
a new study. And I always make the joke that
I had a reference manager for my manuscripts, which didn't
work very well. So I was manually reordering my references and.

Speaker 3 (18:34):
Talked hours hours and hours and hours. But anyway, that's
kind of the story.

Speaker 4 (18:40):
And I put out that paper in November of twenty twenty,
and then Senator Ron Johnson, who was like me. He
was similarly, you know, very kind of disappointed as a
mild word. I mean, he was irate that the government
was doing nothing to provide guidance on treatment, and so
he held these hearings. I testified for the first time

(19:02):
actually in May of twenty twenty on the critical need
for cortico steroids in the hospital phase of the disease.
And by the way, I did that at a time
when every national and international healthcare organization around the world
was recommending against cortico steroids. So I got into my
first rodeo in COVID was cordico steroids because I got

(19:22):
hammered for that.

Speaker 2 (19:23):
Right, just steroids or what exactly they are.

Speaker 4 (19:28):
There's a strong anti inflammatory ammino suppressants, so they suppressed inflammation.
So the things like prednozone or hydro cortizone you might
have heard of, or quarters and those are cordico steroids,
and and everybody was saying don't use them, even though
these patients were hyper inflaming. Then their lungs were actually
failing from excessive inflammation.

Speaker 3 (19:49):
So it was not really a stretch to know that
it was important.

Speaker 4 (19:52):
And we had a lot of scientific evidence from stars
and mers, but yet everybody's recommending against it. And it
was just bizarre because Paul and I are expert clinicians
and we've been at the bedside trying to keep patients
alive for you know, decades, Like we know stuff that works,
we know it doesn't work, and we were using COVID
to good effect.

Speaker 3 (20:12):
And so that was kind of the first thing. And
and but I'll just say that first chapter.

Speaker 4 (20:17):
Although I was attacked viciously, even by my own university,
within three months it became the standard of care worldwide.
So people forget that my early, my early should I say,
dissent in treatment of COVID was later validated.

Speaker 3 (20:34):
But when it got.

Speaker 2 (20:35):
Sorry, was it was it validated with recognition?

Speaker 3 (20:39):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (20:40):
Well no, no, no, no, no no one ever said, hey,
doctor Grace, sorry.

Speaker 3 (20:43):
We attacked you.

Speaker 4 (20:44):
No that that goes water under the bridge, no one,
no one, No one ever apologizes. But I know that
I was validated because what I had said earlier became
the standard of care. But no, there's no public you know,
championing or you get what I'm saying.

Speaker 3 (21:00):
Late, So.

Speaker 4 (21:02):
But then you know, the same thing happened with ivermactin
is that we had this incredible sign The first patient
I treated turned around overnight with ivermactin. And I was
also talked to the doctors from various places around the
world that they were just telling me these incredible benefits.
I mean, nobody was dying in places they were using ivermactin.

(21:23):
I talked to patients in South America and India, plus
all of the studies showed the same thing. And then
I got to testify again in Senator Johnston's hearing in
December of twenty twenty, and that testimony went viral, and
then ivermactin became a real issue. It became it was
on the tongues of everybody. Everyone was considering it.

Speaker 3 (21:44):
But when I first testified, I listen.

Speaker 4 (21:47):
I didn't think I would get a ticker tape parade,
but I thought people would appreciate that we'd identified this
really positive data signal and they would incorporate it into
their protocols and people would start to use it. But
this is where my life changed, is that the opposite happened,
and I was very confused. I really did know what

(22:08):
was going on, but instead it was immediately attacked, dismissed.
I was personally attacked Paul Marreck was personally attacked. Hit
jobs showed up in the media, and I saw these
blatant distortions and untruths being published by the major media
organizations around the world. And they all had the same formula,

(22:29):
same template, used similar quotes from pedigree doctors from these
high fluting agencies and or universities.

Speaker 3 (22:39):
And it was to say, it was disappointing. It was
really a kind of disorienting.

Speaker 2 (22:44):
Did the word corruption, did the word corruption?

Speaker 3 (22:47):
And not at not initially?

Speaker 4 (22:52):
No. And I'll tell you why I didn't leap to
corruption initially. It is because there's this thing in medicine.
I don't know if you're aware of it, but there's
a field of medicine that actually was first originated in
the early nineteen nineties, and it's called evidence based medicine.
And it was this development where we as a field

(23:15):
decided to really make sure that any treatments we used
have sufficient evidence of safety and efficacy. And part of
that field is assessing or assigning a quality of evidence
to everything, and so.

Speaker 3 (23:32):
It's a very cautious type of thing.

Speaker 4 (23:34):
It's first member, do no harm, right, But also they
just wanted to make sure that the way we treated
diseases had scientific evidence to support them, and I believed
in evidence based medicine how was practice, But I came
to find out that evidence based medicine got corrupted and
distorted from its original precepts. And so when it was

(23:56):
when my first recommendations were not accepted, like I'd been
used to that, I'd had evidence based medicine arguments with
colleagues for a decade, because every time I said something worked,
they were like, where's the random controlled trial to show that.
There's this trial that shows this this trial that shows
that the evidence is conflicting. It's controversial, and I'm I
had some of these tired arguments later, but as a physician.

Speaker 3 (24:19):
I knew what worked.

Speaker 4 (24:21):
I mean, I was doing stuff in my practice, in
my ICU. I could see patients turning around if I
did stuff to them. But yet I'd be lambasted with
all of these evidence based medicine arguments that what I
was actually doing to help people wasn't working.

Speaker 3 (24:35):
And so it was a dystopian world a little bit.

Speaker 4 (24:38):
And and so at first I thought this was about
an argument over evidence. Is that the agencies around the
world and the scientists around the world we're not going
to rescommend something until they had what's called high quality,
rigorous evidence. You know, my word that I'm turning patients
around was not enough. We needed the big trial, right even.

Speaker 2 (24:56):
Though result called up just a second, I'm intrigued. You're
in a hospital, you're working in a hospital, and you're
doing all this and you're surrounded by other medical people,
doctors in space have you.

Speaker 3 (25:10):
Yep?

Speaker 2 (25:11):
Couldn't they see what you were seeing as the result?

Speaker 3 (25:14):
Well, here's the thing.

Speaker 4 (25:18):
No, because they're not involved with my patients and me
telling them that I'm seeing patients turn around with the
use of a certain drug, they'd have to take my
word for it.

Speaker 3 (25:30):
And they were I'm.

Speaker 4 (25:33):
Just say, propagandized with so much negativity towards potential treatments
for COVID. Right, So just real quick, as you mentioned,
I wrote the book The War and I vermactin the
one of my colleagues could have written the book The
War on hydroxy chloroquin because if you read my book

(25:53):
when I when I described the war and I remactin,
it was the same exact war as hydroxychlorquin a year prior,
the same tactic, same results. And so now I'm kind
of jumping to. What I've learned is that me low cost,
widely available, effective therapeutic that threatens the financial interest or

(26:17):
the markets that popped up in COVID, not only just
for the vaccines, but remdesivir, pack, Slovid, molnipevir, all of
these pipeline patented pharmaceuticals, those, all these cheap, safe, effective,
repurpose therapies threaten them. And so what they do to
those therapies is they employ disinformation campaigns. And when I

(26:40):
first gave my testimony and ivermactin and the response to it,
I couldn't understand it.

Speaker 3 (26:47):
I didn't I didn't know what was going on.

Speaker 4 (26:48):
I thought this is more about just like people arguing
about wanting, you know, the best evidence.

Speaker 3 (26:53):
And I thought it was more of a scientific argument.

Speaker 4 (26:56):
And it was only four months after that when I
was still confused, although I started to get other signals
that there was something more nefarious than a scientific disagreement.
One of the first signs was my review paper, which
had been accepted for publication after passing three rounds of
rigorous peer review by senior scientists, three of them selected

(27:17):
from the NIH and CDC in the US.

Speaker 3 (27:20):
The journal had accepted it for publication, but they wouldn't
publish it. And week after week went by, and I.

Speaker 4 (27:29):
Was getting really disturbed by this because it was the
winter of twenty twenty twenty one, which was the highest
death rates in this country since before or since, I mean,
it was a wicked winter of death from COVID, and
they wouldn't publish my papers, and I finally I wrote
an accusatory email to the journal. I said, I suspect

(27:50):
scientific misconduct, and within a day the editor reached out
to my editor and we'd learned that they were retracting
the paper.

Speaker 3 (28:00):
They were not going to publish it. Your question was answered,
My question was answered.

Speaker 4 (28:05):
And that's when I finally realized I was up against something.
I didn't know what it was, but it wasn't good,
and it wasn't scientific, it wasn't humanitarian. I knew there
was a force that was working against what we were
trying to do, which has helped people in the world,
and so I started get the feeling like there was
something out there that was working against us. And that

(28:27):
was the first time when I realized.

Speaker 3 (28:29):
This wasn't just a scientific argument.

Speaker 4 (28:32):
And then what changed my life and which inspired that book,
was in March of twenty twenty one, so four months
after my testimony, I got an email one morning from
someone I didn't know. It was a two line email,
and it was from a guy named Professor William B. Grant,
and he's one of the most published researchers on vitamin

(28:54):
D in the world. And he wrote me an email
out of the blue, said, dear doctor Corey, what they're
doing to ivermectin. They've been doing to vitamin D for decades,
and he included a link to an article called the
Disinformation Playbook. And I was really intrigued by this email,
so I click on the article and I start reading

(29:15):
and it's written by an organization called the Union for
Concerns Scientists. It was written in twenty seventeen, before the pandemic,
and it outlines what industries do when science emergers that's
inconvenient to their interests. And they're named after American football plays.
It's like the fake, the fix, the screen, the blitz,
the diversion, And I'm reading the descriptions of these tactics

(29:39):
and I'm like, oh my god, Suddenly it's like I
had the teacher's addition to what was going on because
I had I had dozens of examples of each of
those tactics being deployed against ivermactin in the prior four months,
and I realized that I was like had a front
row seat and I was the target of a global
disinformation campaign against ivermactin. And that's kind of one of

(30:04):
the probably one of the biggest, not the only biggest
awakenings that the world that I thought I lived in
was operating by very different principles and forces.

Speaker 2 (30:15):
How did that affect you?

Speaker 4 (30:19):
Oh, it's an odd answer, but in a way, I
wouldn't say it made me happy, But yeah, I'm always
trying to figure out problems and understand ways to navigate
and go.

Speaker 3 (30:30):
Forward and to help.

Speaker 4 (30:32):
That article helped me really positively because now I felt
I understood the problem and what I was up against
and how I could maybe start to approach it because
I was really confused for four months. I started having
suspicions that there was something going on, and there's probably
people who didn't want IVERMAC them to be recommended for everyone.

(30:52):
But when I read that article, it really brought everything
to a sharp focus, and it was interesting about the
disinformation playbook. It was invented in the nineteen fifties by
a pr firm, so it was literally it's a playbook
put together by a public relations firm that was hired
by the tobacco industry. When science emerged that was inconvenient

(31:15):
to their interests, right, the science around cancer, and so
the disinformation around tobacco had been practiced for fifty years,
but the pharmaceutical industry have honed that to like an
assassin level. And the other thing is Fharma has more
control than tobacco because Farmer is one of the biggest

(31:37):
advertisers in the world, particularly in the United States tapers, televisions,
you know, not New Zealand, as I understand, but here
it is.

Speaker 2 (31:47):
But third in the list of big expenders, oh for sure.
And in lobbying and congress, farmers number one. It's two
to three times the coal and gas budget, as I've understood,
the number one advertiser in American media. And so they
literally control all of the information sources. And so people

(32:08):
listen to media and television newspapers for like health guidance,
you're not going to hear any centing opinions. Then what's
in the interest of the pharmaceutal industry and why people
don't understand.

Speaker 4 (32:21):
That to this day. I just I can't figure that out.
Why people have not figured that out well.

Speaker 2 (32:29):
On a much smaller scale, it's it's not non existent,
if I might put it that way, not non existent
in this country. Uh, it's it's much smaller. But but
I know that that has happened, so I know of
somebody who was affected by it. Yeah, and advertising is

(32:52):
what keeps is what keeps the media going?

Speaker 4 (32:55):
Yeah, for sure here it's I think it's the scale
of their influence and powers is many magnitudes over what
it must be like in New Zealand.

Speaker 3 (33:03):
But but the.

Speaker 4 (33:04):
Thing is they don't necessarily just need to control the media.
And this is are now going from Old Pier to
New Pier. It's not just the media, it's the journals.

Speaker 3 (33:15):
It's the medical journals themselves.

Speaker 4 (33:17):
And I think the foundation for all of the fraud
in COVID, especially against early repurpose drugs like hydroxy coroquin
and ivermactin, it begins at the level of the high
impact medical journals. They're the ones that allowed the publication
of manipulated, fraudulent trials attacking those drugs. Once you have

(33:39):
those journals, those manuscripts published in those major journals, that's
the foundation for everything else that happens, because you don't
need the media at that point. Now that supports the
health agencies. So the health agency, look, we're looking at
the best science, the British Medical Journal, you know, the
New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American
Medical Association. They say, hydroxychlorcon doesn't work, ivermactin doesn't work.

Speaker 3 (34:00):
And so I was watching this.

Speaker 4 (34:03):
Global fraud with millions dying because they weren't having access
to early treat and drugs. And so when you ask
me first how that felt when I read the disinformation playbook,
as I after I learned Decision Lead, and it started
to see what the consequences of this massive disinformation was
and how much destruction they achieved and the humanitarian catastrophe

(34:28):
that unfolded, which is needless deaths worldwide. And then I'm
going to have to bring in another difficult topic. That
same disinformation campaign against early treatment DOUGS was employed to
prop up the most toxic and lethal intervention in the
history of medicine, which is these mRNA vaccines. I don't

(34:48):
want to detract from the ironmatin thing, but I have
to tell you I watched that same campaign prop up
the vaccines, and so it was like a double whammy.
And all I want to say laden is COVID would
have been over early on, or it would not have
been this major worldwide catastrophe that it was had science

(35:09):
not been so controlled, corrupted and manipulated to make billions
of dollars. I mean, look at the billions they made
off of vaccines rem dec of the I don't know
if they use reum descritate in New Zealand most of
the world. They did here they did, even despite the
WHO saying it didn't work, which was really bizarre to me.

(35:31):
Like it's it's infused into every COVID patient's arm in
the United States, and it's a worthless drug. It has
no logical sense for working. The data the shows that
it works is manipulated, and so like I basically Layton,
I based, you know, from from the comfortable world that
I thought.

Speaker 3 (35:51):
We thought we were.

Speaker 4 (35:53):
Organized and respected and followed certain rules and medical ethics,
and it was somewhat of an orderly world that I
thought I lived in. Obviously with with evil and violence
and all those things, but I thought the institutions were
marshaled against that to it to you know, a few
years into COVID, I realized I lived in a dystopian
world where the institutions on their face look like they're

(36:15):
doing the right thing. Behind the scenes, they were basically
creating actions and policies that were directly harmful to not
only my country's citizenry, but countries around the world. And
I would say the western and most media saturated in advance,
like the advanced health economies of the.

Speaker 3 (36:33):
World, they did the worst.

Speaker 4 (36:36):
They were the most manipulated and also the most profitable.
And so it basically I realized I lived in a
different world than I thought I lived in.

Speaker 2 (36:46):
Now would be a good time, I think, to introduce
the tourist who was well over wait and came into
your hospital. Yeah, and you took care of him. Yeah,
just tell us the detail.

Speaker 4 (37:05):
Now, are you referring to the patient who I discovered
was fully vaccinated?

Speaker 2 (37:11):
This was a guy who was I con't remember it.
This is the guy who was was why I were white.
He was a tourist.

Speaker 4 (37:20):
Oh, so that was around ivermactin that so that wasn't
my page. I'm not sure, because there's there's a couple
of instances of positions that I used to begin some
topics in my book.

Speaker 3 (37:29):
But was that It may have been because.

Speaker 2 (37:34):
I think because I'm pretty I'm pretty sure now that
he actually mentioned in our discussion.

Speaker 3 (37:40):
But this was around Ivermactin.

Speaker 4 (37:41):
Yes, yeah, So, so the instance that I use is
that in my research on Ivermactin, not only did we
start seeing all these trials, but I realized that the
first paper that showed the incredible evidence of kfcy of
Ivermactin was actually a case series from the Dominican Republic

(38:03):
which was posted on a preprint server in June of
twenty twenty. That that goes back to the statement I
just made too late, and is that COVID would have
never been an issue if we were like objective, reasonable,
pragmatic and looking at all evidence equally. But what happened
in the Dominican Republic is in March of twenty twenty.
Remember March of twenty twenty. This is when COVID was

(38:24):
just beginning. There's this really So what happened is the
lead author of that case series, which had immense difficulty
getting published, which is another thing I don't want to
go backwards into corruption. But not only were the journals
publishing manipulated trials with pre determined results, they were.

Speaker 3 (38:44):
Rejecting and retracting any.

Speaker 4 (38:47):
Science which advanced or support of alternative cheap therapies. And
so the first time they posted their paper was in
June of twenty twenty. I think it took them a
year to publish it in like some tertiary journal. But
I ended up becoming in contact with the lead author,
and I even know when I was in Dominican Republic.

Speaker 3 (39:07):
Is that's the place that I would go vacation.

Speaker 4 (39:09):
I got to meet up with him and we had
drinks one night and he told me this the origin
story of his discovery of ivermactin in COVID, and that
was in March of twenty twenty. He said that he
owned a series of clinics in the Minia Republic and
he got a call one night from a doctor who
was on call and had just admitted some overweight I

(39:30):
think it was an American tourist who was hypoxic on oxygen,
not looking good.

Speaker 3 (39:35):
Was that the story?

Speaker 4 (39:36):
Yeah, but this is like the origin story, and so
he you know, the doctor calls and says, hey, you know,
this guy's looking really bad.

Speaker 3 (39:45):
He's like, what do you think we should do?

Speaker 4 (39:46):
And the doctor apparently had researched or known about ivermactin
as an anti viral, and so he asked his essential
boss for permission to treat the guy with ivermactin. And
so doctor Radondo, who is my colleague who I was
talking to at this time. Doctor Dondo, in his account
he said, you know what, I convened our committee, you know,
because they, you know, his clinics had one, like a

(40:08):
therapeutic committee. He said, I consulted them and we discussed
the case, and we understood the gravity of this patient.
And I called the doctor back who was on call,
and I said, you have we're giving you permission to
treat him with ivermectin, and the doctor replied, thanks, I
gave it to him an hour ago, which I always loved,

(40:30):
so the doctor of vision. But the point of that
story was the guy rapidly improved overnight, and I think
he got discharged the next day off oxygen.

Speaker 3 (40:41):
So it was like this dramatic response.

Speaker 4 (40:44):
And so after that first patient, they quickly developed a protocol.
They treated everyone in their urgent cares and emergency rooms
with avermeactin. They did this for months, and then in
June twenty twenty they reported on thirty three hundred patients
treated with iver maactin on arrival to any of their facilities,
and out of the thirty three hundred patients, they had

(41:06):
sixteen hospitalizations and two deaths.

Speaker 3 (41:10):
Two deaths out.

Speaker 4 (41:12):
Of thirty three hundred patients arriving at an urgency at
urgent cares and emergency.

Speaker 3 (41:16):
Rooms, which is a dramatic result.

Speaker 4 (41:20):
And anyway, that's where that adnecdote came from. But the
point of that story is, like that paper showed up
on a preprint server of June to twenty twenty. There's
no advanced health economy in the world that was monitoring
preprints looking for data that possibly showed early evidence of
the efficacy. So even if they were interested, they could
have done an immediate trial, whatever evidence based medicine standards

(41:42):
they wanted to do, they could have done that, but
there was no efforts of doing that. There was no
efforts at looking at available repurpose drugs. Everything was about
testing pricey patented pharmaceuticals. And so I knew the whole
gig was up. I mean, eventually I figured it out,
like repurpose drugs are the Achilles heel. And you know

(42:02):
what I mean my repurpose right, it's off patent drugs
or drugs that have been proved for one indication that
you find now that's really effective in another.

Speaker 3 (42:10):
Whereas Farmer doesn't like that.

Speaker 4 (42:12):
With every disease, they want to come up with new
stuff that's on patent that is immensely profitable. So they
do not like off patent repurpose drugs being used to
treat anything because there's no money in it, which is
actually false. There is money you could make a profit,
you just can't make absurd obscene profits that that industry

(42:33):
is used to. That industry is a criminal syndicate. That's
also the other thing I've learned in these five years
is I've studied the pharmacuit industry. I've looked at their
history of criminal finds, civil finds. They operate with impunity.
They are constantly being sued and found guilty for the
most nefarious actions in the world, and yet again people

(42:55):
seem unaware of that.

Speaker 2 (42:59):
Is it that they don't want to know? Is is
it that that I want to believe that, I want
to that, I want to steer themselves off. Course.

Speaker 4 (43:08):
No, No, it's much cruder and coarser and simpler than that,
and it's much more base than that. They know, they
absolutely know they are an industry that works for their shareholders,
not for their patients. They see this as a business marketplace.
They see competitive threats and they destroy them. Iver Mactin

(43:31):
was a competitor to all of their products, and it
got destroyed and they used all the powers that they
could marshal. Hydroxychloroquin the same, and there's also a lot
of others, but those were the two most prominent, and
those are the two that they most deployed their resources
and attacking.

Speaker 2 (43:50):
What's the I'm trying to think of the name of
the of the surgeon in Newcastle Hospital in Australia, who's
who's been mettling this. There are medicos in this part
of the world, Australasia who have who have made stands.
And another one I interviewed right at the very beginning
of all this, and he was so onto it, so well,

(44:14):
not just convincing, but he was so backed up by
what he knew and how he knew it that I
undertook an attempt to introduce him to some well shure,
we say political people here. No nobody wanted to know. No,
not interested, not interested. Now but when you but when

(44:37):
you when you understand, of course, the nature of the
people who were running the country at that time, starting
with the top of the beehive, which is where the
government is the queen bee. If you want, you understand
why they didn't want to know.

Speaker 4 (44:54):
They all obey. And this is might be trait might
be a little bit too explosive, but they all obey.
What I discover is that you know, well, I always
knew that humans, we are creatures of incentives. We all
respond to incentives, whether they'd be positive or negative. And
what I came to find out is that everyone seems

(45:16):
to work for their masters. Because the one central thing
that I took away, which is the most disappointing with
what I learned about humanity and COVID.

Speaker 3 (45:24):
Is that the desire to remaine employed is paramount.

Speaker 4 (45:30):
People will not blow up their careers over ethical.

Speaker 3 (45:34):
Or moral objections even though they know harm.

Speaker 4 (45:37):
Is being caused. You did they protect themselves? Well, here's
the difference. I don't want to call myself a hero.

Speaker 3 (45:45):
Because really, I'll I'll do that for you.

Speaker 4 (45:48):
No, no, because I don't think it's correct.

Speaker 3 (45:51):
I was just early, so I was naive.

Speaker 4 (45:55):
If I knew what would befall me, I'd like to
tell you I would have done the same thing. But
it's different for doctors who came after me, because they
saw what happened to me, and so they'd have to
really willingly commit career suicide. Which is when I did
what I was doing. I didn't think I would get

(46:15):
career honors or you know, awards, But I didn't think
what was going to happen to my life was going
to happen. So I went in with naivete, not heroism.
That's just my honest assessment. But even when after though,
I will, I'll give myself credit for this, even when
my life started going sideways because of that, and which

(46:36):
shocked me because I'd always been celebrated in my field.

Speaker 3 (46:39):
By the way, I was very well.

Speaker 4 (46:40):
Hopefully this doesn't come across egotisto, but I was a
very prominent physician in my own right. In my specialty,
I was known as a global pioneer for a sub
especially called critical care ulcure snography I'd written a textbook
that was published in seven languages. I traveled the country
and world teaching my specialty.

Speaker 2 (46:57):
By the way, don't forget that.

Speaker 4 (46:59):
Yeah, no, I was like really well known and well published,
and you know, I've been recruited by a top research university.
I was like their head clinician and critical care. I
was a major clinical leader in that institution. So you know,
the fall from Grace was pretty far and fast. But
even as that fall began to happen, I wasn't going

(47:19):
to change tactics. I was like, oh, you want to
do this, I'm coming right back at you. And I thought,
however I could, I had my nonprofit. I just kept
putting out truths, putting out what I've always done, which
is teaching what I know, researching what I don't know,
and then disseminating that. And the more I did that,
the more stuff happened to me. And look, Layton, you

(47:40):
were just mentioning a prominent doctor. I guess that prominent
doctor was also trying to speak truth. Did they get punished?

Speaker 2 (47:47):
To be honest, I can't answer that. He is still
in his position.

Speaker 4 (47:54):
Okay, But if he was advocating for things that went
that was dissenting with this, and I'm using air quotes here.

Speaker 3 (48:00):
Consensus that was the other thing.

Speaker 4 (48:03):
I realized that scientific consensus, whether it be in medicine
or in climate or anything, is a manufactured consensus. You
cannot reach consensus without deep influence of economic interests, because
if you come up with a consensus that is scientifically
inconvenient to the prevailing economic interest, they will make sure

(48:25):
that doesn't happen. And so now I'm talking a little
bit outside of medicine, but certainly in medicine. I realized
that the guidelines that I'd followed for treatment of diseases,
for everything in medicine is that they're largely controlled and manufactured.

Speaker 3 (48:39):
And so.

Speaker 4 (48:42):
Maybe demoralization is a strong word, maybe it's not, but
I will say this, I'm I'm a physician, a strained
estranged from allopathic medicine. I will say I got excommunicated.
Luckily I'm still in practice. I'm in private practice. I'm
a fee based I don't take insurance. The sadness of

(49:03):
that is not everyone can see me or afford to
see me. But the beauty in that is I get
to practice medicine as.

Speaker 3 (49:09):
I see fit. I can do whatever I want.

Speaker 4 (49:12):
I can employ different therapies, I can try whatever I
want to help patients. And I've learned so much about medicine.
I am so free and more inspired as a physician
than I've ever been.

Speaker 3 (49:22):
And that's just me today.

Speaker 4 (49:24):
And so part of what I just told you is
that fall from Grace was really turbulent and difficult. I
lost income sources along the way. I have three children.
By the way, we pay for college in this country,
and it's really expensive. I have three daughters.

Speaker 3 (49:38):
That you know.

Speaker 4 (49:39):
Like when my income got cut off, I mean it
was scary. I mean I have a house, I have
a mortgage, I have all those things. But luckily, in
my case, I landed on my feet. There's many other
doctors who didn't have the profile or didn't recover the
way I did, who've lost their licenses and livelihoods for
doing things as simple as treating people with ivermactin based
on the science and the rationale for it. And let

(50:02):
me just go back to the Disinformation Playbook and those
five five football plays.

Speaker 3 (50:08):
The football play called.

Speaker 4 (50:09):
The blitz, that's when the attackers go after the quarterback.
The blitz in the Disinformation Playbook is when they go
after researchers who are producing the science that's inconvenient. And
that's why when I read that article that day, I
realized that I'd been blitzed.

Speaker 3 (50:28):
Paul Merrick had been blitzed.

Speaker 4 (50:30):
And there's like decades of evidence of various scientists. When
you come out with a contrarian opinion, you get blitzed.
And I saw doctors all over the world, Canada, US,
every and by the way, I have devoted immense amounts
of time to defending them in their core cases, in
their hearings with medical boards where they're trying to get
their licenses, trying to argue for them, showing that the

(50:52):
science supported everything they did. I will tell you it
doesn't work. That's the other thing. They weaponized, not only
the media, the journals, the agencies, but also the medical
boards and so doctors with contrarian aprisonances, no matter how
scientifically base it is, they will go after you. Keep
it in keep in line, or you're gone. And that's

(51:15):
the sadness because the persecution of me and my colleagues
and what happened to our careers, I don't think it
was meant to personally punish us. It was to make
us an example because we were the most public and
they wanted to take us down. And I think that's
to send a message to any other doctor who wants
to step out of line. And it worked, and it works. Yeah,

(51:35):
you have com client doctors all over the world.

Speaker 2 (51:37):
Now, now it would be a good time to just
change gears.

Speaker 3 (51:41):
Sure.

Speaker 2 (51:42):
The story of Andy Hill and the World Health Organization,
Oh boy. I found this to be because I haven't
read the entire book, and I've dipped in and out
of what interested me, and I found this chapter to
be the most fascinating.

Speaker 3 (51:59):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (52:00):
If you don't if you don't like that, you don't
agree with me, then that's only because I haven't really
read some of the others that Well.

Speaker 3 (52:08):
Here's the thing, here's the thing.

Speaker 4 (52:09):
I'm just going to go back to the Disinformation Playbook, right,
So it's five plays each and every one of them
are devastating and I and as you probably can tell,
like my book is thematically structured around that article to
called the Disinformation Playbook. Because when I got that email
that day and I read that article, I realized that's

(52:29):
what's going on in the world, and I said, I
committed myself on that day to write a book as
a case example of how disinformation campaigns are executed in practice.
I wanted to do like a case study so that
everyone in world could read it and that they would
then be immune to this immense amount of propaganda and
censorship which creates these things. And one of those tactics, right,

(52:52):
we talked about the blitz. The fake is when they
do these predetermined trials. They manipulate trials to have a
certain result. But Andy Hill is the example I used
for something called the diversion where they co opt officials
and and and.

Speaker 3 (53:09):
Andy Hill was that example.

Speaker 4 (53:11):
So any Hill was the lead researcher for the WHO,
and he was in charge of a team that was
supposed to research all repurposed off patent drugs that could
potentially be used in COVID. And when I discovered this
a week after my ivermactin testimony the conference organized because

(53:35):
we both presented the same conference, I said, who's this
guy researching ivromatic? Because he had more data than I had,
and he had better data than I had, and so
I reached out to him, and he and I quickly
became collegial.

Speaker 3 (53:46):
He was a really nice guy. We were both invested.

Speaker 4 (53:49):
We were both really impressed with the data around ivermactin,
and I remained in contact with him for months and
he was very supportive. The problem was the more supportive
he got. He gave a talk in South Africa on
Zoom one day, and he was like basically telling the world,
get ready, get your supplies of ivermectin together, and you

(54:12):
know this is going to be the treatment.

Speaker 3 (54:13):
For early COVID.

Speaker 4 (54:15):
The day he gave that lecture, two days later, he
told me that his sponsors at the WHO told him
he's not allowed to speak publicly anymore. And after that
day his behaviors started to get very strange.

Speaker 3 (54:32):
It was not the same guy I knew he ended up.

Speaker 4 (54:38):
He ended up posting a draft of his paper which
reviewed all of the trials, and there was so much
nonsense in it that didn't match the discussions we'd had
or our own interprets of the data that me and
Paul we told him, We said, we think you're doing
scientific his conduct.

Speaker 3 (54:56):
We don't know why. We peer reviewed his paper.

Speaker 4 (54:59):
We suggested the additions that he should make to make
it more correct.

Speaker 3 (55:03):
He ignored it.

Speaker 4 (55:04):
He left it up on a preprint server and then
he went even f and he just basically he stopped.

Speaker 3 (55:10):
Sharing data, started doing all these things.

Speaker 4 (55:12):
And then Tess Lowry from the UK was another colleague
of mine, caught him on a zoom and basically attacked
him for the same thing. What are you doing, any
Why are you writing these things when it doesn't match
the data that we have, And he basically admitted that
he was under pressure from his sponsors, and basically so
he got co opted because he's he's a research who

(55:33):
has long worked for international healthcare agency. His whole livelihood
is getting grants to do research, and whoever was funding
him did not like what he was finding and they
wanted him to shut up. And that's kind of the
main point of that that story with Any. And I
stopped talking to him because well, he also stopped talking

(55:54):
to me because I realized he got captured.

Speaker 2 (55:56):
That was one of the aspects of the book I found.
You're reading away happily and all of a sudden, your
attention gets stolen from you by something like this, this
video that that doctor Tess Laurie Yeah produced And so
I went off and found it. It wasn't easy because

(56:16):
it wasn't where it was supposed to be, but I
dug it out and it wasn't that long. I think
it was twenty minutes, maybe.

Speaker 3 (56:26):
Ed.

Speaker 2 (56:26):
It was fascinating watching this fella squirm, squirm, that's what
he was. He was squirming, squirming. He looked so uncomfortable,
He looked so uncovering. Although he tried to defend himself
in words, his body and his you know, movements and
facial expression did not lie.

Speaker 4 (56:47):
He and Tess was fierce. I mean, Test showed who
she was in that conversation. I mean, he was somewhat
of a colleague, we'd gotten to know him a little bit.
But she was unremitting. I mean she just really said,
what are you doing? I mean, there's fifteen thousand people
dying a day in the world and you're putting out

(57:11):
this you know, you're changing the science around ivermectin and how.

Speaker 3 (57:15):
You present it, Like how can you sleep at night?
Is what she said to him.

Speaker 2 (57:20):
So after that, after she did that, and you haven't
spoken to him, what eventuated?

Speaker 3 (57:27):
Well, actually after she did that.

Speaker 4 (57:29):
She never showed me the video at the time, but
she broke off all relationships.

Speaker 3 (57:34):
With any before I did.

Speaker 4 (57:35):
I continue to have relationship with him because I was
trying to do good cop while she was bad cop,
because he was feeding me data that I thought was
really important, because you know what his job was to
search all of the clinical trial registries in the world,
identify all of the randomized control trials on any particular medicine.

(57:56):
And by the time he got to ivermectin, they'd already
researched hydroxtic cork and all these other things, and so
he had knowledge, and he was in contact and communication
with investigators with ongoing trials, and he was like, letting
me know at some of this data show, which is
by the way, not really scientifically rigorous. You shouldn't be
sharing data of ongoing trials, but he was getting early

(58:19):
reports of either trial results or ongoing data, and so
I thought it was a productive relationship for me because
I was just putting stuff out there around ivermactin.

Speaker 3 (58:29):
But eventually, I can't remember how our.

Speaker 4 (58:32):
Relationship ended, but he ended his contract with WHO. Then
he published a wickedly positive meta analysis which departed from
his work with WHO, because when he presented his data,
Who the WHO did not recommend ivermactin.

Speaker 3 (58:50):
And that's a whole other scandal.

Speaker 4 (58:52):
What they did with the ivernmatin recommendation because the data
that he presented them overwhelmingly supported the use of iromactin,
But they ended up throwing out tens of trials that
he had a mass that met their protocol for include usion.
They threw them out saying, oh, this is what's wrong
with this one and that one. And even after throwing

(59:13):
everything out, they found an eighty two percent reduction immortality.
But then the WHO labeled it as low quality evidence.
And as a result, because it's such low quality, they said,
most people in the world would not want to be
treated with something based on low quality evidence outside of
a clinical trial. And so the WHO is official recommendation

(59:34):
from March of twenty twenty one which do not use
outside of a clinical trial. And if you read the
wording of that recommendation, it there's nothing more that infuriates
me to this day than reading that document because they
basically say, there's a paragraph in that document wich I
think is really important that this world be aware of.
It goes as follows. The Clinical Development Guidelines Group has

(01:00:01):
found that although the data is in support of ivermectin use,
it is of such low certainty that most well informed
citizens of the world would not want to be treated
with it outside of a trial. And Layton, can I
just give you my interpretation of that sentence. That means

(01:00:21):
in the real world sense, I'm picturing myself as a
patient ill with COVID in a hospital room on six
leaders of nasal flow canula oxygen, breathing at thirty times
a minute, feeling terrible, and I'm declining, and a doctor
comes into my room and says to me, doctor Corey,

(01:00:42):
there's this medicine.

Speaker 3 (01:00:43):
It's one of the safest.

Speaker 4 (01:00:44):
Medicines in history, and based on the best available evidence,
it shows that your chance of dying will be reduced
by eighty two percent, because that's also in their documents,
statistically significant eighty two percent reduction immortality if you use
ivermathin So let's say this imaginary doctor would tell me that,
and then he would say, but the evidence is it's

(01:01:05):
low certainty.

Speaker 3 (01:01:07):
Would you like to be treated with it?

Speaker 4 (01:01:10):
So that means that most well informed citizens would respond,
you know, because the evidence is of such low certainty, doctor,
I'm not comfortably being treated outside of a clinical trial.
Did you understand the absurdity of what we're talking about? Yep,
that's literally the world we live in. So when we
go back to the old pier to new pier, like,

(01:01:31):
I'm watching an organization that's supposed toly shepherd the public
health of the citizens of the world use this brazenly clownish, absurd, illogical, impractical,
and inhuman reasoning for one reason only to not recommend ifromactin.
And why don't they want to do that because of

(01:01:54):
the people who control the WHO. It's controlled by Big
Pharma and Bill Gates, who has immense interest in Big Pharma.
So of course the WHO it's not a public health organization,
it's it's literally run by the pharmaceutical industry, and so
of course they not going to promote a repurposed drug.

(01:02:14):
But the contortions and the clownishness that they had to
go to in order to avoid doing that is so disturbing.

Speaker 2 (01:02:22):
Is so disturbing strong enough.

Speaker 4 (01:02:25):
No I could I probably I'm a New Yorker, so
I then probably go into curse words.

Speaker 3 (01:02:32):
But it's funny though. Actually I love how you just
asked that. Ladies.

Speaker 4 (01:02:36):
You know why because when I talk about these topics,
I sometimes use the phrase I've run out of descriptors,
Like I don't know how to describe this stuff. Evil, inhumane, corrupt, absurd, brazen, clownish.
I don't even know how to describe it. But it's dystopian,
is the word that's frightening.

Speaker 3 (01:02:57):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:02:57):
By the way, the interview I did right back in
the very early days of this and I said I
couldn't think of his name, Thomas BARROTI.

Speaker 3 (01:03:06):
Oh, yeah, Tom Bardi, Sure, I know Tom.

Speaker 4 (01:03:08):
Yeah, And Tom Tom was I mean, he was on
the hydroxychloroquin very early. He knew that one, Yes, he knew.
I'vever met them words. And and here's the other point.
He's another example like a Paul Marek less so a
Pierre Corey, but a literally globally prominent physician who had
reached the heights of medicine, celebrated beyond belief, one of

(01:03:31):
the most highly published erudite you know, brilliant physicians who
got taken down for his opinions in COVID because they
were contrarian to the objective. It doesn't matter how how
high you rise, they can take anyone down.

Speaker 2 (01:03:48):
I've got to turn this round on to you again. Yeah,
you got taken down, but now you're now you're thriving. Yes,
and you gave us, you gave us, you gave us
part of an explanation for that. I think because you're
independent and you can charge, and you apologize for people
who can't see you. And I saw some thing on

(01:04:09):
ONYX I think yesterday had said you charged twelve hundred
thirteen hundred dollars or something and that was abusiful. People
like comments without understanding what the.

Speaker 3 (01:04:19):
Can I talk about that for a second?

Speaker 2 (01:04:21):
Yeah, I got a lot.

Speaker 5 (01:04:23):
Because it's so It saddens me so much because people
think that if I charged twelve hundred dollars that I'm
getting the twelve hundred dollars.

Speaker 3 (01:04:35):
Like, people don't understand how businesses work.

Speaker 4 (01:04:38):
My practice has twenty five employees, We have teams of nurses.
We do proactive follow up. Me and my partner have
committed to being the best employers we can. We very
early on, before we even financially we were barely financially solvent,
we offered them health insurance. Now we offer them retirement

(01:05:00):
plans where we match. Like, I do not make a
lot of money from my practice, I really don't. But
people look at the fee we charge and they think
that I'm laughing all the way to the bank, or
I'm retiring on a Hawaiian island. The economics of a
medical practice that survives only on consultation is impossible to

(01:05:21):
calculate because you have to understand how the medical system
makes its money.

Speaker 3 (01:05:25):
They have massive profit.

Speaker 4 (01:05:27):
Centers that a practice where it's all our sweat and tears,
like I spend immense amount of times with my patients.

Speaker 3 (01:05:33):
We don't have imaging centers.

Speaker 4 (01:05:35):
I don't have blood labs where I can charge dollars,
and I don't have surgeons and procedures or imaging. You know,
that's how the economics of healthcare works. And so it
saddens me that people look at a fee that I
charge and they think that I'm overcharging. To be honest,
I know what other folks, and I don't want to

(01:05:56):
call us alternative or integrative, but I will tell you
we are the most reasonably priced that I've seen.

Speaker 1 (01:06:02):
I have.

Speaker 3 (01:06:03):
I know colleagues that I like and enjoy respect.

Speaker 4 (01:06:06):
They charge an immense amount of money for what they do,
far far higher than what I do. We do pragmatic
pricing and we deliver excellent care. And again, if this
comes across as defensive, it's somewhat defenses, but it's also
trying to explain to people that you don't understand that
that fee is not like goes into my wallet by

(01:06:29):
the time against my wallet, it's like a fifteenth of
what that is. I bet you wish that is anyway, Yeah,
I wish it did. But and you know I could.
And here's the thing. I could probably charge fifteen thousand
or I don't. I probably couldn't, but three thousand of
consultation five thousand, I don't. We're just trying to make

(01:06:49):
a decent salary while delivering excellent care of supporting our employees.

Speaker 3 (01:06:53):
That's all we are. Are just a normal business.

Speaker 2 (01:06:55):
Let's go back to public health officials. You'd be familiar
with Ashley Bluefield.

Speaker 4 (01:07:04):
Heard the name that's in New Zealand, right, Yes, yeah,
I'm You're all the same. By the way, I don't
need to know their names.

Speaker 2 (01:07:12):
Okay, but Ashley bloom well, Ashley Bloomfield.

Speaker 3 (01:07:16):
Maybe unless unless you're telling me this one stood out. Okay,
Well he did.

Speaker 2 (01:07:20):
He stood out because because he don't know, because he
dumped on Ivermecton and.

Speaker 3 (01:07:26):
Standing out leading Hold on, let me check you on that.

Speaker 2 (01:07:29):
No, no, no, no, no, we're not No, we're not there yet.
I haven't finished.

Speaker 3 (01:07:32):
Okay, good.

Speaker 2 (01:07:34):
He dumped on Ivermecton and kept dumping on Ivermecton and
that really pissed off a fairly large number of people
in this country. The sad admit is that he got
a knighthood at the end of this, and the Prime
Minister got a damehood. And and I've asked this question

(01:07:56):
of other people on vodcast on podcasts, and I'm going
to ask you. I wasn't going to actually because I've
asked it enough, but I'm going to ask you, would
you support a move and I'm not, but would you
support a move to remove those honors, so called honors
from people who did such damage to their country?

Speaker 3 (01:08:18):
Of course I would, of course I would.

Speaker 4 (01:08:21):
That that goes back to my adjectives of clown world,
bizarro world. I mean, people are celebrated for participating in
a humanitarian catastrophe. They're getting awards and united and damed.
I mean that, what world are we living in?

Speaker 3 (01:08:36):
And you know, you know what? You know what this
triggers in my mind, Laydon, is that what what COVID was.

Speaker 4 (01:08:44):
I mean, there's a lot of things, but Ultimately, in
my mind, it was a war of information, and those
that control the information sources and the dissemination of information,
they disseminated consistently corrupted information in the forms of propaganda,
and then they censored helpful, life saving information.

Speaker 3 (01:09:08):
It caused the humanitarian catastrophe.

Speaker 4 (01:09:10):
And and so to celebrate those that were practitioners of
it is.

Speaker 3 (01:09:16):
It saddening?

Speaker 4 (01:09:17):
Is one word? Again, I got to break down my fassaurs. Yes,
but it's absurd, absurd, absurd.

Speaker 2 (01:09:25):
Okay, but that's not the end of Ashley Bloomfield. He's
now with the He's now with the w Y Show,
and and the w A Show is trying to corral
the world with regards as you would be well aware
with regard to their plan for the future. And and
the question that I have asked others before as well

(01:09:46):
is should New Zealand join up because they're going FI.

Speaker 3 (01:09:53):
Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:09:56):
The more you centralize power and control, the more not
not the more susceptible it is to being captured. Because
they can capture diverse entities across the world, but the
the more you see power into a centralized.

Speaker 3 (01:10:13):
Entity that is demonstrably captured.

Speaker 4 (01:10:17):
There's been documentation for twenty years of how the WHO
of old, which is I would say last century, has
been transformed. It literally works in the service of big Pharma.
So any country that doubles that joints the WHO is
basically seeding their sovereignty and their authority to corporate interests,

(01:10:40):
which is antithetical to the purpose of government. Why would
a government seat itself to a profit making corporation. I mean,
to go into gates would be another hour, but he's
on record showing that, like the eighteen billion that he
learned that he earned in the pandemic through his investments

(01:11:03):
into all the things that they mandated. So I just
don't understand why I see the world in a certain
way and so few others don't.

Speaker 3 (01:11:12):
Actually, I shouldn't say that I don't understand.

Speaker 4 (01:11:14):
I do understand because people have been sickened with immense
propaganda from every sphere three hundred and sixty degrees.

Speaker 3 (01:11:25):
And can we talk.

Speaker 4 (01:11:26):
About propaganda for a second late, because the definition that
I've been most moved by for what propaganda is, it's
actually from a colleague patient of mine. He's a world
expert in propaganda. His name is Professor Mark Crispin Miller.
From New York University. And his definition is that propaganda
is a story or a message to get.

Speaker 3 (01:11:48):
You to think or act in a certain way.

Speaker 4 (01:11:53):
And when I first heard that definition, I'd already been
deeply studied on disinformation. I'd already seen a world act
so bizarrely against their own interests. I saw people lining
up for these toxic vaccines. I saw examples of like
someone pass out in centers after getting a vaccine, and
yet the line didn't disperse.

Speaker 3 (01:12:14):
People kept showing up for more vaccines. And so the
story or message to get you.

Speaker 4 (01:12:20):
Think or act in a certain way, the world just
has no idea that they're being propagated. They're being manipulated
with information to get them to think correct in certain ways,
and their actions are oftentimes directly opposed to their interests
as a human, to their well being and their safety.
And they don't know this. They don't know they're being manipulated.

(01:12:44):
And I don't know how to communicate that.

Speaker 3 (01:12:46):
To the world.

Speaker 4 (01:12:46):
But I really my main message is very trite, right
because other people like Trump and other people are saying,
like turn off your televisions, turn off your radios, employ
critical thinking. You know, understand what is behind those information sources.
What are the financial interests that are driving that information
towards you?

Speaker 3 (01:13:06):
I mean, I just wish.

Speaker 4 (01:13:07):
The world would just somehow be able to identify and
listen to independent, unconflicted researchers, doctors, media, folks, you.

Speaker 3 (01:13:18):
Know, folks like you. I'm sure you don't take pharmal money, Laton.

Speaker 2 (01:13:22):
They never offered.

Speaker 3 (01:13:23):
Yeah, that's what was gonna say.

Speaker 2 (01:13:24):
But they wouldn't. They wouldn't.

Speaker 3 (01:13:28):
You wouldn't have me on if that was the case.

Speaker 2 (01:13:30):
They wouldn't. They wouldn't get it. So Professor Mark Crispin Miller,
and what's his what's his specialty?

Speaker 4 (01:13:40):
So he was a professor of propaganda at New York
University and he.

Speaker 2 (01:13:45):
Saw all of this, so hang on. So he's a
professor of propaganda, not to propagate propaganda, but to to educate.

Speaker 4 (01:13:54):
The history, ramifications, consequences, presence of propaganda in society. I mean,
he's that that's been his life's work because and I
think it's as probably one of the most important topics
in the world today.

Speaker 3 (01:14:08):
It doesn't get discussed.

Speaker 4 (01:14:10):
But remember propaganda has started back in the nineteen twenties
with Barnet's and the Germans used it, and everyone seems
to identify propaganda with like the Soviet Union.

Speaker 3 (01:14:20):
North Korea, Germany. And you know, one of the.

Speaker 4 (01:14:24):
Really funny anecdotes that really has stayed with me today
is that I was talking to a friend of mine
who is German, and he said, you know, back, you know,
before the Berlin Wall fell.

Speaker 3 (01:14:35):
He said, the East.

Speaker 4 (01:14:37):
Germans, they didn't listen to the television. They knew that
it was the state line to them. They were well
aware that you don't trust the television, you don't trust
the media.

Speaker 3 (01:14:49):
They laughed at that stuff.

Speaker 4 (01:14:51):
Whereas I live in a country in the United States
where people turn on their televisions and radio stations and
read their newspapers.

Speaker 3 (01:15:00):
They have no idea what's behind them.

Speaker 4 (01:15:03):
They think that these are well meaning journalists with integrity,
who've done investment negations and have determined accuracy using facts
and conclusions.

Speaker 3 (01:15:13):
That is not true.

Speaker 4 (01:15:15):
If it's printed in the papers, it's because someone allowed
it to be printed.

Speaker 3 (01:15:20):
You know, you can't.

Speaker 4 (01:15:21):
Print anything that's inconvenient to the powers that be.

Speaker 2 (01:15:26):
Something you just said was a trigger, and I was
about to launch into the fact that education is a
failure on a number of fronts. It's a failure here,
it's a failure practically everywhere. But my mind was cast
back to when I was still in still in school,

(01:15:47):
young young, I suggest even sort of the end of
primary school and certainly early high school. And this was
analyzing stories from the paper in class and deconstructing them
and working out you know what, It wasn't propaganda. It

(01:16:10):
was how to find propaganda, if you like. I don't
know that I ever realized that, but it was to
basically find the true path about about all sorts of things.
I don't I don't think it lasted that long as
a subject, but I don't believe it happens.

Speaker 3 (01:16:28):
At all now.

Speaker 2 (01:16:30):
No, No, you don't learn to think, certainly don't learn
to think critically as a kid, and it's easy to
brainwash you under those circumstances.

Speaker 4 (01:16:41):
I totally agree. You know, I want to inject something positive.
Why Why because because let's go back to how we
started leading. You asked me about old Pierre and new Pierre.
You know what happened to me is literally my perception,
my awareness of reality and society and what's really going

(01:17:03):
on truly expanded. I'm not going to claim I know everything.
I do know I know a lot more of the
world than I did. But the positive point is and
that's been positive for me. I really think the only
way you can live is being as well informed as
you can, and I think I was very poorly informed
in my prior existence.

Speaker 3 (01:17:25):
But I'm not the only one. This has happened to
a lot of people.

Speaker 4 (01:17:29):
You know. We use that phrase that they were woken
up in COVID And I recently wrote a post. I
have a substack that's pretty popular. I do a lot
of writings on medical and medical adjacent topics, and I
was doing a post on the trust in hospitals and
physicians because there was a paper that got a lot
of attention last July where Americans trust in hospitals and

(01:17:55):
physicians from twenty nineteen to twenty twenty three or four
plummeted from seventy one percent to forty percent. Americas are
disgusted with the medical system and how they responded in
all actions they took. And I also found data in
the media. So there's this survey they've done about media

(01:18:16):
for like, I think they had data going back twenty
five years and they asked respondents to ask about their
trust to media and there's three choices. It was lots
of trust, some trust, and no trust at all.

Speaker 3 (01:18:32):
And for the first time.

Speaker 4 (01:18:34):
In history, last year the highest proportion were those that
had no trust in all in media. I think it
was like forty one percent, and then the other choices
were something less. And so I think people are waking
up to the fact that we live in a world
of propaganda, and I think that's only good for the

(01:18:55):
health of the world, for our sanity, for our actions,
because if you don't trust and people who are lying
to you, hopefully you can make decisions that are better
for your.

Speaker 3 (01:19:05):
Welfare and your family's welfare.

Speaker 2 (01:19:08):
You know, you've distracted me from some of the directions
I would have liked to have gone in, and we're
going to conclude in a minute with one of those.
But it's occurred to me that, let me put it
this way, the book and I have a lot of books,
the book is fascinating. It's fascinating for a multitude of reasons.

(01:19:33):
First of all for its information and education. Secondly, because
of the way it's written. And I found myself thinking,
this is a scene out of a crime novel or
some equivalent to that. It was like it was like
you weren't really writing about yourself and the circumstances that

(01:19:55):
you found yourself in. You were almost almost being fictitious
about it and writing about somebody else. But it was
that it's the book has written, your co author or
whatever you call her, and you have done a superb job.

Speaker 3 (01:20:15):
I appreciate that.

Speaker 2 (01:20:16):
There are two things I really want to touch on.
One is you made reference toward the end of the book.
Here we are in the last two paragraphs of the
vaccine Disinformation Campaign, Chapter forty. I am now estranged from
not only those who practice medicine inside that system, but

(01:20:38):
from science in general, at least as it's come to
be known. I no longer know who and what to
trust within the system, and have now chosen to believe
nothing that cannot be confirmed by numerous objective data sources
using an assessment of the totality of evidence, and not
the curated, premeditated conclusions found in high impact medical journal studies.

(01:21:04):
To say it is a sad state of affairs is
the understatement of my life. To realize that this state
of medical science has existed for decades is both humbling
and terrifying. How many people have I hurt using medicines
built on lies. In my career, my consolation is that
oftentimes it takes great destruction to realize where weakness lies.

(01:21:28):
After a natural disaster leaves a community in ruins, you
can bet the rebuilt structures will be engineered to withstand
the next one. At least I know what I'm dealing
with now, because only good things can come from that knowledge.
In one film depiction of Pearl Harbor, the attacks planner,
Japanese Admiral Yavamoto declares, I fear all we have done

(01:21:52):
is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with
a terrible resolve. Yes, I am awake, and I am
filled with a terrible, immense, galvanizing resolve. And I thought
that there was a brilliant commentary.

Speaker 3 (01:22:09):
It is.

Speaker 2 (01:22:10):
It is, unfortunately not what contained what I was, what
I was heading for, but it was worth it was
worth inserting. You mentioned you mentioned climate Somewhere in that
vicinity of what I read. You wrote that you don't
believe things, et cetera. And you now don't know that
you believe what they're saying about climate change. Basically, that's

(01:22:33):
what you said. You haven't had time to study it,
but you hope you will. Climate change was where I
started at least twenty five years ago, and I've been
I've been warring with the powers that ever since because
it's a scam, just like just like so many other things.
It's a real scam. And I've done multiple multiple interviews

(01:22:56):
with people over the years on it. But climate is
is not controlled by two?

Speaker 3 (01:23:06):
Can I say that?

Speaker 4 (01:23:07):
Since I wrote that book, which is already I don't know,
maybe two three years ago, I haven't spent a lot
of time in climate And I'll tell you why, because
what makes an expert is pattern recognition. And all the
hallmarks of the disinformation campaign around ivermectin are present with

(01:23:28):
man made CO two causing global warming. Now, every single thumbprint,
fingerprint of the disinformation against avernmactin is there with global
warmer So I don't care. And I also saw a
documentary which really kind of stirred me to my soul
where and I can't remember what the documentary was called,

(01:23:48):
but they interviewed lots of prominent climate scientists who described
what happens to them when they try to present or
write papers about their data showing that it's not about
man made CO two.

Speaker 2 (01:24:05):
Well that was a British That was a British documentary. Eh.
And there were two of them, and I don't know
whether it was the first one or the second, because
I think they felt it a similar similar pattern in BOS.
But I more recently interviewed the director of that, the
man who put it together. Yeah, and.

Speaker 4 (01:24:27):
No hearing them, they were they were basically describing what
happened to my career. So like I identified their message
resonated and I was like, you go fight that war.
I'm fighting this war. But I realized that's a war
of disinformation. This whole CO two thing is that, like
you said, it's a scam, just like ivermectin is a

(01:24:47):
horsety wormer.

Speaker 3 (01:24:48):
It's a scam.

Speaker 4 (01:24:49):
And and you know they lose grant funding, they can't
do research. I mean, if you're doing inconvenient science to
the narrative or to the consensus, your career drives up.
So what you're left with are these fields of science
which are Yeah, there's consens because they get rid of

(01:25:10):
all the dissidents, they star of the dissonance to death
or the excommunicate them, so all you get is parrot heads.

Speaker 2 (01:25:18):
Correct. Yes, And I was going to say that I
recognize what you said about about the link between the two.
The thing that intrigued me was I worked in reverse
and climate change scamming trained me up for being very

(01:25:38):
suspicious at the beginning and then developing it on everything
to do with COVID nineteen yep. So on that note,
I'm going to say that it's been one of the
It's been an amazing how long hour and twenty minutes

(01:25:59):
amazing And you're on holiday in Hawaii. You're going to
play golf this afternoon. I know that, and I am
so grateful for the time that you've and the energy
that you were put into the time that we have
been talking so much so that I'm going to put
you on the spot and say, would you rejoin us
because there are other things, you know, a few months

(01:26:20):
down the track.

Speaker 3 (01:26:21):
Absolutely no, it's a pleasure. I'm happy to have joined
you for sure.

Speaker 2 (01:26:25):
Anyway, listen, my thanks to your very patient wife. I
hope that the golf goes well.

Speaker 3 (01:26:32):
It'll be good. It's beautiful weather here. Well, nice talking
to man. Yeah, anytime reach out.

Speaker 2 (01:26:37):
Likewise, if you feel this value in it, absolutely thank you, Pierre.

Speaker 3 (01:26:41):
All right, lady, take care By.

Speaker 2 (01:27:01):
Missus producer the mail room for a podcast two hundred
lady four, Hi Layson, did you hear me two eight four?

Speaker 3 (01:27:07):
I know, yeah, I heard.

Speaker 2 (01:27:09):
I thought perfect, okay, good? Was that good? In anticipation
of my next question, how are you good?

Speaker 6 (01:27:17):
You've done two eight before? I can't believe it? And
I am good? Thank you?

Speaker 2 (01:27:20):
Excellent?

Speaker 6 (01:27:21):
What a convoluted experience that was.

Speaker 2 (01:27:23):
Why don't you prove it?

Speaker 6 (01:27:24):
By Sir I Shall Allison says the recent podcast featuring
Remish the Kur again is excellent. Wish we could hear
him more often. His consistent wisdom, helpful worldview, and wide
knowledge is needed to be heard by everyone. I wonder
if the long march through the institutions and the ensuing
success of that Marxist strategy would have turned out the

(01:27:47):
same if such professors and lecturers as Ramesh had been
appointed in most of the universities of the West. Could
we have had a class of young with similar wisdom
and common sense. At the end, you introduce us to
Stephen the medical doctor and read us a tantalizing fragment
of his letter necessary information not commonly known, superb. I

(01:28:10):
wonder if he would not be open to being interviewed
by you, protecting anonymity in the process latent, and she
asks where is one able to read the full submission
which he wrote.

Speaker 2 (01:28:23):
I'm not sure about that. I will chase it up.
How's that I had to yesterday evening I had to
explain to somebody who was roughly my age about the
long march through the institutions. Never heard of it. I
reckon that good eighty percent of the population hasn't interesting. Now,

(01:28:44):
this is from a lawyer hoping you might care to
analyze and dismember Simon Wilson's piece in this week's Herald
on Trump's first one hundred I don't need to point
out the inaccuracies and distortions to you, but were you
to do so publicly, would be doing us all a
great service. Secondly, just mentioning that's all that I have,

(01:29:08):
I've had to make a firm decision not to listen
any longer to Hoskin's American correspondent Richard Arnold's three days
a week. Heaven help us. He's Australian, not American, and
not sure who employs him. He's freelanced, by the way.
Any reference to Trump, any references to Trump are slighting,

(01:29:28):
snide and sneering. The illiteration is excusable. In describing this
bigot bluntly, he's full of bs. Never credit for the
border or attempts to end the Ukrainian disaster. Hosking seems
to defer to him the latter's grasp of political realities.
Also suspect. This morning, he predicted that Dutton is going

(01:29:52):
to get thrashed because the polls indicate that he probably
will lose. But not to the extent Hoskin should Hosking
not to that extent. Hoskin should realize by now that
the Aussie Poles are very slewed or should they be skewed?
As of course, is their media just like ours? Sincerely,

(01:30:15):
So I've got legal banking for that.

Speaker 3 (01:30:18):
He's a lawyer.

Speaker 2 (01:30:19):
Oh good, Yeah. Now the answer to your question, what
I care to analyze and dismember Simon Wilson's piece? What
Simon Wilson, hush.

Speaker 6 (01:30:31):
Layton leyden Jin says So far this year, two first
world Western countries, Canada and Australia, have submitted themselves to
the same leftist government administrations which nearly destroyed them. When
Joe Rogan asked Jordan Peterson, who of course is a Canadian,
on how Canada might correct her course given the reelection

(01:30:54):
of the Trudeau two point zero government under Carney. Jordan responded, well,
people either correct course by waking up or by experiencing
severe pain. And it looks to me we've chosen the
severe pain route, I guess, says Jen. Australians have also
chosen the root of severe pain with the reelection of
Albanesi's divisive and leftist Labor government. Australians will realize soon

(01:31:20):
enough that they have just elected a government that will
bring the full weight of the Progressive's war against themselves.
So I just want to leave Australians with a powerful
exhortation from Robert Menzi's Australia's twelfth Prime Minister, and in quotes,
Robert Menzie says, what may be before us, we do
not know nor how long the journey, but this we

(01:31:41):
do know that truth is our companion on that journey,
that truth is with us in the battle, and that
truth must win. I know that in spite of the
emotions we are all feeling, you will show that Australia
is ready to see it through. May God, in his
mercy and compassion, grant that the world may soon be
delivered from this agony. And then Jin says, what is

(01:32:03):
a speech that declared war against Nazi Germany in nineteen
thirty nine got to do with the recent Australian election everything?
As Nick Kata said, the Liberals have forgotten how to
play politics. Dutton has lost as courage and Australia's freedom
is at stake. The Liberal Party needs to gear up
for war. Dutton or whoever replaces him, needs to rediscover

(01:32:26):
their courage and battle with truth by their side. Perhaps
Mensi's rousing words might help.

Speaker 2 (01:32:33):
I might cut that out and stick it on a
war truth very good anyway, David, And this is the
subject line I'm going to read the subject I never
do that. Adirn rubbish the Bill of Rights in Act.
In twenty twenty, Luxon wants to double down. Christopher Luckxlon
now wants to promote MP Katherine Wedd's members bill seeking

(01:32:55):
to ban social media access to children under sixteen years
of age. I wrote to Katherine Wedd pointing out that
such legislation would be in clear breach of Section fourteen
of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which states
everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the
freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of

(01:33:18):
any kind in any form. I have yet to receive
a reply from Catherine wed but according to media reports,
she denied her proposed legislation would breach the Bill of
Rights Act. I guess since Adirn and her government got
away with the totally ignoring the Bill of Rights Act
during COVID, Luxen and his National Party in Peace believe

(01:33:40):
they can do the same. Luxeon is attempting to validate
this proposed legislation on the premise that it mimics the
Australian Online Safety Act. I'm surprised that Australians didn't push
back against such draconian legislation, given that it does not
conform to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

(01:34:04):
Both Australia and New Zealand are signatories to this Convention,
in which Article nineteen states everyone shall have the right
to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to seek, receive,
and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers,
either orally, in writing or in print, or in the

(01:34:25):
form of art, or through any other means of his
choice close quote. Clearly Australian politicians have chosen to ignore
an international convention which protected their citizens' civil rights, and
that is no reason for MP Katherine wedd and Prime
Minister Christopher Luxen to ignore the basic rights of New

(01:34:47):
Zealanders as laid out but laid out in both the
Convention and the Bill of Rights Act. No government should
be mandating social media restrictions to children under sixteen. That
responsibility surely rests solely with parents. David, I could discuss
this for the next thirty minutes. I reckon because there

(01:35:07):
are arguments on both sides. I mean, kids aren't allowed
to do this, that and the other, you know, like
drive underage and drink underage and all of those things.
So I guess that's there for their own protection, and
it is drinking underage and driving underage, then so might
be what they're looking at online. That's that's my best

(01:35:30):
shot at it.

Speaker 6 (01:35:31):
I think the big thing is, isn't it that despite
your thoughts, one's thoughts about how it's a fantastic idea,
how is it going to be managed and policed?

Speaker 2 (01:35:43):
Answer on the aforementioned breakfast Hosts program, I might add
by the way that there's no question in my mind
the best broadcaster in the country, but nobody's without their faults.
That you don't know until you try something, And there
was reference by to the Australian situation too.

Speaker 6 (01:36:01):
You know one hundred percent otherwise, and you know otherwise
you'd have a very good reason to not try anything
because it might fail. So what's the.

Speaker 2 (01:36:10):
Point on that, Well, I've been there once or twice.

Speaker 6 (01:36:12):
Well, the other thing is you and I have said before,
Thank goodness, we have never brought children up, young children
up in this environment because they would far rather sit
on a phone than go outside and play with a ball.

Speaker 2 (01:36:26):
Helllujah that we didn't.

Speaker 3 (01:36:29):
Yeah, I was going to say, what do you mean, right,
you're done? Yes?

Speaker 2 (01:36:33):
Oh, now I've got two more and I'm going to
I'm going to hold them over till next week because
they both deserve a bit of time. So we'll put
them on the side. Come back next week. So you've
got a date, right, you're weird, See you next weekness,

(01:36:54):
as producer, see you laden Now, I presume if you're
still listening that it's because you're interested in this area,
in this topic.

Speaker 3 (01:37:14):
So too.

Speaker 2 (01:37:15):
The commentary on the who's Draft Pandemic Agreement, co authored
by David Bell, and it begins the first section background.
I'm not going to read it all because it runs.
I think it's some thirteen pages or not. Hang on
seventeen pages. Will have the first page pretty much and
that will do. And it begins with background. The Draft

(01:37:38):
Pandemic Agreement the PA has been under development for three
years by delegates of one hundred and ninety four member
states of the World Health Organization, the Health Agency of
the United Nations instituted after the Second World War. The
WHO has been pushing to negotiate a Pandemic Treaty or
accord to better prepare the world for pandemic preparedness, prevention,

(01:38:02):
and response, in parallel with a new set of amendments
to the two thousand and five National Health Regulations the IHR.
The IHR amendments were pushed to a vote at the
seventy seventh World Health Assembly the WHA in twenty twenty four,
less than forty eight hours after negotiations on them finished.

(01:38:23):
This haste was in blatant violation of the who's own
procedural requirements. In December of twenty one, the WHA instituted
the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body the I INB to negotiate the PA,
but this body failed to reach agreements for the twenty

(01:38:45):
twenty four WHA. It was then mandated to finish its
work as soon as possible and no later than a year.
The WHO has tried to add to the sense of haste,
with its Director General DG recently claiming that the next
pandemic could occur tomorrow. Drafts of the PA, along with

(01:39:08):
the IHR amendments, seek to centralize management of pandemics and
pandemic preparedness in the WHO, considerably expanding its role in
public health. Now I realized that as I'm reading this,
the PA and the IHR and the DG in the
whhow and it will get confusing. But this is how
it's written for contexts. The PA and the IHR amendments

(01:39:32):
are squarely aimed at naturally occurring outbreaks, being heavily oriented
to surveillance for pathogens arising in particular from animal reservoirs
in Braggett's spillovers. The recent COVID nineteen pandemic being almost
certainly the result of a laboratory escape, therefore has little

(01:39:52):
relevance to much of the proposed changes. The last time
mortality acute outbreak was the Spanish flu over a century
ago in the pre antibiotic era. Now equally important is
the competence of the wahow in potentially having an expanded role.

(01:40:13):
The WAHO maintained for years that a lab leak was
highly unlikely as a cause for COVID, including on its
investigative panel people suspected of sharing responsibility for work leading
to the probable leak. It then publicly insisted that there
was no human to human transmission of the virus, as

(01:40:33):
reports increased of spread in the population of Wuhan and
subsequently provided highly flawed and exaggerated case fatality rates. Despite
extensive and early evidence of low harm from COVID nineteen
to children, the WAHO was essentially silent as schools were
closed for hundreds of millions of children, setting the scene

(01:40:56):
for raised child marriage, child labour, and future intergenerational poverty.
The who's Kovacs mass vaccination campaign then spent nearly ten
ten billion dollars vaccinating people it knew were mostly already
immune and never at high risk. Fifty percent of sub

(01:41:17):
Saharan populations were less than twenty years of age now
to promote its Pandemic Preparedness Prevention Response PPPR agenda and
the increased funding it is requesting to support this, The
WHO and the wider global health industry looking to benefit

(01:41:37):
have embarked on an unusual campaign to demonstrate of demonstrable
misrepresentation and confusion. Countries in the media have been provided
with a series of reports shown to greatly exaggerate the
available evidence and citations on the risk of pandemics occurring,
exaggerate expected mortality, mostly based on medieval data, and exaggerate

(01:42:02):
the expected return on investment. This has been frustrating, and
while the PA calls for better adherence to honesty and evidence,
it directs these recommendations to countries rather than the WHO itself.
Now to the last paragraph of the sixteen page epic,

(01:42:22):
the PA the Pandemic Agreements requires sixty ratifications by member
states and then in bracketts it says plus thirty days
to enter into force. The PA Pandemic Agreement requires sixty
ratifications by member states plus thirty days to enter into force,

(01:42:44):
which is almost a third of the who's one hundred
and ninety four members. This number is higher than the
ratifications commonly required for international treaties. It may reflect a
disquiet among member states about the usefulness of the PA overall.
There may therefore be a considerable period between the WHA

(01:43:06):
vote where a two thirds its majority is likely to
be found for an essentially motherhood and meaningless set of statements,
and finding sufficient countries to confirm willingness to contribute to
further expanding this draining international commercial and bureaucratic agenda. Summarizes
it well. It would be refreshing, though, if this could

(01:43:29):
be recognized as the rather pointless and in the long
term harmful exercise and removed from the agenda by a
may WHA vote against it. So at this point of time,
I believe the New Zealand is going to sign up
with it, go for the row, which I think is

(01:43:50):
a dumb thing to do. But don't take my word
for it. You listen to Pierre Corey, You've heard Ramish
the Kur, David Bell on a number of occasions, people
who may I suggest, maybe have a better grip on
things than the elected some of those, some of those

(01:44:10):
elected to office. Anyway, that takes us out for podcasts
two hundred and eighty four. It has been very enjoyable.
By the way, if you would like to write to
us Laton at Newstalks AB dot co dot nz and
Carolyn at NEWSTALKSB dot co dot nz. We shall return
for podcasts two hundred and eighty five very shortly. Until then,

(01:44:33):
as always, thank you for listening and we'll talk soon.

Speaker 3 (01:44:44):
Thank you for more from News Talks B.

Speaker 1 (01:44:47):
Listen live on air or online, and keep our shows
with you wherever you go with our podcast on iHeartRadio

All Episodes

Leighton Smith Podcast #284 - May 14th 2025 - Dr Pierre Kory

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Leighton Smith Podcast #284 - May 14th 2025 - Dr Pierre Kory