Leighton Smith Podcast #291 - July 2nd 2025 - Guy Hatchard

Over the last few years there has been much scientific dispute.

Climate dominated much of the last forty years, followed and outranked by Covid-19. Both remain very much in the headlines.

Science itself has suffered in the battle over truth. "Settled science” is more fallacy than fact.

Fortunately, there is an increase in push-back on false or unsubstantiated claims.

Guy Hatchard was a senior manager at Genetic ID; a food safety testing and certification laboratory. He has a degree in Logic and Theoretical Physics and a PhD in Psychology.

In light of the current debate over the NZ Gene Technology Bill, Hatchard provides another warning on “settled science”.

And, finally, we visit The Mailroom with Mrs Producer.

File your comments and complaints at [e-mail]

Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide.

Listen here on iHeartRadio

Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:
To subscribe via iTunes click here

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

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 Leighton
Smith Podcast powered by news talks it B.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Welcome to podcast two hundred and ninety one for July second,
twenty twenty five. The Guy Hatchard Report. Over the last
couple of weeks published some interesting and I think important commentary.
The earliest one published June thirteen, California Dreaming, which refers
to matters concerning AI. Then on the eighteenth of June,

(00:51):
how sick is New Zealand What should be done? Makes
for interesting reading? And then on the twenty ninth of June,
the desire to stay alive and the capacity to give
birth are under threat. So let's look at that for
a moment. After five and a half years examining pandemic evidence,
it's clear who should be winning the argument, but it's

(01:12):
also apparent that attitudes have even hardened. This week, Tanya
Unkovich resigned as an MP. Up until now, she had
been our advocate inside the government, urging caution about biotechnology deregulation.
It seems probable that her unexpected resignation signals the determination
on the part of the coalition, including New Zealand First,

(01:35):
to ignore caution. There appears to be a growing determination
to push ahead with the Gene Technology Bill, which will
impose medical hegemony and genetic destruction on the whole population.
There are overseas interests egging the government on. We are
dealing with fanatics for whom evidence can be ignored with impunity.

(01:57):
And then there's some other input into this discussion that
has nothing to do whatsoever with Guy Hatchet and the
Guy Hatchard report. For instance, I came across to site
the I was totally unaware of Patriot Post and an
article by Laura Hollis the political footprint of settled Science,
which really gave rise to the podcast Interview Today. Now

(02:22):
it's a case of one thing leads to another. This
article by Hollis refers to will let me read it.
Last week, science writer Christopher Plain published a story in
the online magazine The Debrief. The Debrief, which describes its
subject matter as science, tech, and defense for the rebelliously

(02:44):
curious that interested me. It was about fossilized human footprints
found in a desiccated lake bed in White Sands, New Mexico,
and it has to do with the history of human
beings and their arrival in the Americas. The discovery not
only radically changed our perspective on the migration of ancient peoples,
it provides yet another warning about undue reliance upon what

(03:09):
has come to be called settled science, and Hollis continues
on to a number of examples. It was settled science
that COVID nineteen jumped species at of wu Hun markets,
and that we were to pay no attention to the
International Virology lab behind the curtain, or the gain of
function research that we weren't funding except when we were.

(03:33):
It was settled science that the mRNA shots for COVID
nineteen were safe and effective, even though they didn't prevent
contraction or transmission of the disease. And there have been
thousands of cases, many fatal myocarditis and pericarditis in young people.
Other potential adverse effects are now being studied as well.

(03:55):
The party line is still that the shots are safe.
We'll see. The science around climate change isn't settled either.
The science around climate change isn't settled either. And I
referred to another article that I printed on the twenty
eighth of June nineteen hundred. That's one nine hundred scientists

(04:16):
say climate change not caused by CO two the real
environment movement was hijacked. Now that is written by a
man with a science background, and we will get to that,
I believe, on another occasion in the in the near future. Now,
the discussion with Guy Hatchet that follows is a very
interesting one in my opinion, and I value my opinion.

(04:38):
Now at the back end of the podcast, after the
mail room, there's a couple of very interesting matters that
I'll share and I'll be very interested in your reaction
to that also, So after a short break, Guy Hatchet,
Laton Smith. Buckerlan is a natural oral vaccine in a
tablet form called bacterial I say it'll boost your natural

(04:59):
protection against bacterial infections in your chest and throat. A
three day course of seven bugel and 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 whole family From two years of age
and upwards. A course of Buccolan tablets offers cost effective

(05:19):
and safe protection from colds and chills. Protection becomes effective
a few days after you take buccolan and lasts for
up to three months following the three day course. Buccolin
can be taken throughout the cold season, over winter, or
all the year round. And remember Buckelan is not intended
as an alternative to influenza vaccination, but may be used
along with the flu vaccination for added protection. And keep

(05:43):
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 or Clum Layton Smith,

(06:07):
Guy Hatchett's very good to have you back on the podcast.

Speaker 3 (06:09):
Thank you wonderful to be here.

Speaker 2 (06:12):
Earlier on in the podcast, I began with something from
the political footprint of settled science. I want to pick
it up from where I left it and move into
what we're going to talk about this way. So let
me quote that's the way real science works. Even the
most established theories can be questioned, and while defenders of

(06:33):
the status quo will demand a lot of evidence, what
we know will change when new information proves the old
ways of thinking false. But science becomes a very different process, rigid,
intolerant of dissent, and dangerous when it gets yoked to politics.

(06:53):
Questions are no longer permitted because now it's not just
some obscure academics pet theory that's at stake. It's a
platform of policy objectives that an entire political party is
seeking to force down the public's throat or other parts
of their bodies, as may be the I and others
have written about this, says the author. In twenty seventeen,

(07:13):
I wrote What Margarine Can Teach Us About Climate Change,
an article about doctor Paul Offitt's book Pandora's Lab. Seven
Stories of Science Gone Wrong. The government chose to discourage
consumption of dairy products in favor of seed oils on
the basis of flawed and incomplete information, with deleterious health consequences.

(07:35):
Two years later, I wrote another article that explained how
governments around the world mandated sterilizations, coerced abortions, and promoted
infanticide in response to fear mongering and false predictions about
a population explosion. One dead giveaway that academic inquiry has

(07:55):
been hijacked by politics is the term settled science, so
we're told it's settled science. The childhood vaccines are safe
until we learn that none have been the subject of
long term tis against placebos, and some researchers are now
investigating possible connections between vaccinations and sudden infant death syndrome.

(08:16):
Those defending the current vaccination schedule insists that these new
inquiries are nonsense. We'll see and I must include this.
The science around climate change isn't settled either. That the
climate changes is certain, the extent to which human activity
changes it is not. When I was in high school,

(08:38):
we were warned about the coming ice age. By the
time I was in law school it was global warming.
Predictions about the Ozone hole and Antarctica have been wrong.
Science is a process, not a result. Now that was
a long introduction, but I thought it was quite relevant.
Written by Laura Hollis from the Patriot Post. There anything

(09:03):
in there that you'd comment on?

Speaker 3 (09:06):
Well, I think the history of science and scientific ideas
and papers at university, and whenever you get a big
paradigm change, you enter a period of science where you
have competing ideas and some people can change and some

(09:27):
people can't. Change, and we're certainly into that era now.
But as you, as the author said, the politicization of
science is a huge mistake because, as we know, politicians
are driven by ideas which are foreign to science. They

(09:50):
have to do with economic and social ideas which are
a long long way from scientific understanding in its most
rigorous sense.

Speaker 2 (10:03):
You've been You've been writing a lot over the last
few weeks. I think more than more than normal maybe.
And the first one that the first article that took
my attention. They all do, but seriously took my attention.
If you know what I mean, how sick is New
Zealand and what should be done? Where do you go

(10:24):
with that?

Speaker 3 (10:26):
Well, this is something that should be absolutely dominating the
air waves, but it's something that is completely forgotten. Southern
Cross has come out with its annual report. That's a
health insurer, and they report that thirty three percent of

(10:49):
its members made a health claim in twenty nineteen. In
twenty twenty four, fifty percent, that's half claimed under their
health insurance scheme, and that represents a whopping fifty percent
increase in sickness. And that comes out at about one

(11:11):
hundred and fifty eight thousand more sick Southern Cross Cross
clients coming up since twenty nineteen, and if they only
ensure twenty percent of the population, So if you scale
that up, we've got seven one hundred and eighty eight

(11:32):
thousand more sick kiwis in twenty twenty four compared to
twenty nineteen. That's an extra fifteen percent of the population
who are getting sick at this time. And that's staggering.
And that joins a whole huge range of changes in

(11:54):
our health problem profile. We have rates of disability, we
have rates of chest pain, asthma, mental illness, kidney disease,
heart attacks, strokes, ents for all difficulties, and birth rates, cancer,
sick days or with off. The chart increases since the pandemic,

(12:19):
and more particularly not the pandemic, so much has since
twenty twenty one when the vaccination campaign began.

Speaker 2 (12:28):
I I asked the random question of a medico only
recently that I was just having a discussion with or
with whom I was just having a discussion, And I said,
considering what we know now, what chance, for instance, that

(12:52):
my issue, which was a heart attack in twenty two
that was connected with the two opening shots that I
got because I didn't get any more, put a stop
to it. And the answer was along the lines of,
well that's something The answer was, well, that's something that

(13:13):
nobody knows the answer to.

Speaker 3 (13:15):
Well, we do know the answer to it, don't we.
Because studies are being published, you know, definitive studies looking
at a very wide range of illnesses, comparing the outcomes
for vaccinated and unvaccinated. And here in New Zealand, it's
become a political dogma to put your head in the
sand and not say anything. One of the reasons is

(13:38):
is that General Medical Council may jump on you and
you might lose your job, or the government might sue you,
sach you, sue you and imprison you even for going
against the political dogma that vaccination was a wonderful thing,
like the COVID vaccination.

Speaker 2 (14:00):
But the statistics and the detail that is now known
doesn't let over right what the government was saying and
might still be saying in some quarters.

Speaker 3 (14:14):
Absolutely. I mean, we have to wake up, we have
to wake up to the reality and we have to
face the consequences. This is a yeah, what's happening is
that the government is saying people are becoming workshy there
you know, because the disability rates are up so high

(14:37):
and the sick days are up so high, and therefore
we have to sort of force people back to work.
But the answer is really rather simple when you look
at the stats is people are becoming more sick, and
they're more sick with more serious illnesses. We're seeing now
for the first time in fifty years that the rate
of heart attacks is increasing and the rate of rate

(15:01):
of deaths from heart disease is increasing. We're, as one
person put it in the UK, this is we've set
ourselves back fifteen years as far as cardiac illness and
strokers concerned, diso for cancers, and the media needs to

(15:21):
step up here. I mean, we've got a diet of
headlines that say, you know, family tragedy, mother or father
struck down with cancer, or yesterday I think we saw
filmmaker went to sleep and didn't wake up and so on.
We're sort of they're sensationalizing what's going on. But you

(15:43):
look at the hard statistics and these the increases are enormous.
I mean, they're they're frighteningly enormous, and we have to backtrack.
And quite frankly, I don't care whether it's the vaccine
or the COVID. I mean, the evidence, in my opinion,
points very strongly to the vaccine, But whether it's the

(16:06):
vaccine or COVID doesn't really matter. They both came out
of a biotech lab and we've made a huge mistake
going down a route that is affecting the capacity of
the immune system to function. That's the end of it.
That's the end of the story. And people it now,

(16:26):
they're resisting it because they're deeply invested in this parrot,
in this genetic paradigm that we can alter people's genetics
and make them live longer and be more healthy. It
just simply isn't true.

Speaker 2 (16:40):
How do you prove that?

Speaker 3 (16:43):
Well, you know, it's very simple. You know, from a
mathematical point of view, from a statistical point of view,
you have to use time series analysis. The key is
when did something occurred? If you did A and B happens,
then you're you know, you suspect. But if you do

(17:08):
A again and B happens again, then you get a
bit more sure, and with each step the certainty of
your conclusion increases. This is what time series analysis does.
A follow B or B follow A, and then you
get to what's at the root of the causation here,
and we're way past that in terms of the statistical analysis.

(17:32):
It's just that governments have wanted to hide their tracks.
And this is where you started out, the politicization of science.
There are political reputations on the line now connected to
a full scientific narrative. And I have to go back
to Nazi Germany when you know, relativity was described as

(17:57):
Jewish science and prescribed you couldn't believe in Einstein because
he was Jewish. It's it's ridiculous situation that we find
ourselves in, and there's a lot of money involved. There's
an awful lot of money and government grants. People's standing

(18:20):
in their profession is at risk, people's political standing, the
capacity to attract investment, and that is if you look
at the investment side of things that is changing. Biotech
companies are now finding it very difficult to attract investment

(18:45):
because one, most biotech companies, you're about eighty percent of
biotech startups fail. But two, there has been an accumulation
of evidence of deaths from gene therapies and so on,
and investors, you know, they're taking decisions that the government,

(19:05):
they're compelled to take decisions because they have to make
good investments. The government doesn't care because they can waste
money as much as they want.

Speaker 2 (19:14):
Quote from your article that I'm referring to, the massive
global death toll, which should have been laid at the
feet of biotechnology, amounts to tens of millions of lost
souls whose fate is being ignored, a number still growing daily.

Speaker 3 (19:31):
Absolutely, I mean that just look at the excess deaths.
And again there are studies coming on.

Speaker 2 (19:37):
But there are no excess deaths.

Speaker 3 (19:43):
You know, you have to massage the data a lot,
and the studies that study published the other day, really
even the World Health Organization is starting to admit that
it's rather strange that the highly vaccinated countries have the
highest level of excess deaths. And we sort of we

(20:06):
have dodged the bullet a little bit in the early
days because we locked down our borders and we actually
just didn't lock out COVID for twenty twenty and twenty
twenty one, we locked out the flu as well by
locking our borders down here. But actually death started to

(20:29):
peak in twenty twenty one in New Zealand, and they went
up in parallel with the vaccination program, we didn't have
the flu. We still have the lockdowns and the border closures.
But the death started to climb. And if you add up,
if you accumulate the deaths that twenty twenty and the

(20:50):
beginning of twenty twenty one, when we had that very
low death rate, that kind of saved the figures. But
as you go through the years, you get into twenty
two and you get into twenty three, you see the
excess death taking out and we still have access deaths.
Twenty twenty four was up four point seven percent on
the historical average. Well that's one thousand and four.

Speaker 2 (21:14):
Death Sorry, sorry you dropped out momentarily, one thousand.

Speaker 3 (21:18):
One thousand, four hundred extra deaths in twenty twenty four.

Speaker 2 (21:25):
In New Zealand.

Speaker 3 (21:27):
In New Zealand. Yeah, and that's that's up to actually
March twenty twenty five. We still have exces deaths here.
More people are dying and that's not a small number.
That's more than dies in road accidents. It's more than
the number of people who died in Tehran.

Speaker 2 (21:48):
That's why I asked you to repeat it, because it's
a very large number. I would have thought when it
comes to an excess now how does that compare with
other parts of the world. And I know that Written
really has been at the forefront of releasing these figures
over everybody else.

Speaker 3 (22:09):
Well, No, there's a lot of countries, you know, we
just don't pay so much attention to other countries. South Korea,
it releases a lot of data that can be publicly analyzed,
and some of the Eastern European countries and even the
Mids and Middle East countries as well. The excess deaths

(22:30):
are up where the vaccination rates are high. And it's
not just excess deaths, it's the level of illness. And
that includes mental illness. Because our genes, the functioning pnetic
system underpins our whole physiology, it underpins our whole mental

(22:51):
health as well. We're discussing before that. You just go
back in history and in eighteen ninety five Marie Curie
discovered radioactivity, and then we had a whole era that
went right through until the nineteen thirties where people thought
that radioactivity was a miracle cure. You could buy little

(23:14):
devices with radioactive material in them where you put water
in it and then you overnight, and then you were
supposed to drink six cups a day, and the American
Medical Association even regulated the whole system, so they didn't
like ones that weren't delivering really high doses of radioactivity.

(23:36):
But it took thirty five years before people realized this
was extremely dangerous and cancerous.

Speaker 2 (23:44):
Why does it take so long, because that's not a
sole case. Why does it take so Why does it
take so long for something that's been introduced, be it
an approach, be it a product or whatever, a methodology
that ends up being declared invalid or close to it,
but it's taken a long time to get there.

Speaker 3 (24:05):
Well, you can go back to the Thomas Khon's work
on structure of scientific revolutions. He talked about the so
called anomalous card experiment where they're experimenting in this case,
upon students and they're in a room and they've got
a screen and they're presented with playing cards and asked

(24:26):
to identify them. And they're quite fast and they readily
identify playing cards. You know, that's the six of hearts,
that's the nine of spades, and so on. But what
the experimenter did was that he introduced anomalous cards, so
you would have a red seven of spades, for example,

(24:50):
which of course is a card that doesn't exist. Now,
at a high pace, the students had no difficulty identifying them.
So they would see that the red seven of spades
and they would say, oh, that's the seven of hearts.
So they would be getting it wrong. Now you slow
the pace down the presentation of the cards, and a

(25:13):
point was reached where the subject would start to get confused. Oh,
I'm not sure about that one, and then something would twig.
Oh wait a minute, that's not a card. But a
significant proportion of the population, more than ten percent, can
never make the switch. Doesn't matter how slowly you show

(25:34):
them those cards. And these are students, remember they're intelligent people.
Doesn't matter how slowly you show them those cards. They
can't ever make the switch to the fact that there
is such a thing as an anomalous card. And that
is what we're at. We've come to the point where
the whole idea that you can edit genes and get

(25:57):
something better, which is turning out to be a false idea.
We're getting something worse, we're getting health problems, and so on.
There's a bus section of even these very intelligent people
involved in biotechnology, so called intelligent anyway, they can't make
the switch, they can't admit that they were wrong. We've

(26:19):
got that in the field of politics, and we've got
it in the field of science, people.

Speaker 2 (26:25):
And economics. Unless you want to include that one of
the first two groups.

Speaker 3 (26:29):
Yeah, yeah, we're in We're in deep trouble. We're in
deep trouble because this technology is really unhealthy and it
comes back to you know, millions of people. We're in
a This like a war.

Speaker 2 (26:48):
That's a that's a very aggressive way of putting it.

Speaker 3 (26:52):
Well, it's a war. And this is what I'd like
to say. It's a war on nature. It's it's the
ultimate expression of destructive thinking. You know, we tend to
feel that destructive thinking is limited to the military, but
actually a lot of medical science is built on the
idea of destroying the pathogen. And you know that's a

(27:17):
lot of biotech techniques come from bacterial destructive bacterial properties.
When you do genetic engineering, you get double strandber breaks
in the DNA, you get essentially mutative events that take
place that are destructive of the coherent functioning of the DNA.

(27:41):
So in that sense, it's like a war. It's a
war that's occurring in the on the micro organism level,
sorry all of us.

Speaker 2 (27:53):
So you asked the question where are governments placing their
trust and what are they investing in on our behalf.
What's the answer.

Speaker 3 (28:04):
Well, they're going for gene technology, yes, but they're also
going big time for things like artificial intelligence, which is
a huge mistake. I mean, way back when you know
calculators came in. Who would have sort of predicted in
the beginning that people would no longer be able to
do math. But that's the situation we've arrived in. By

(28:26):
starting to stop using our minds and start delegating that
to electronic devices, you gradually lose the capacity to think.
And that has happened in maths and it's now happening
with writing and reading. And AI is the kind of

(28:48):
ultimate kind of development of that, because whilst a calculator
at least gives you the right answer, AI gives you
some really stupid answers, as probably many of your listeners
know already. I cited the example of I want to

(29:08):
just in the one of my articles I've just written,
I wanted to know just to be sure? Was New
Zealand one of the first to have a national health service,
and so I asked Google, and Google AI, which now
sort of headlines, you're the answer to your question. It

(29:33):
came back and said, no, New Zealand wasn't one of
the first, because it did it in nineteen thirty eight
and the NHS in the UK was formed in nineteen
forty eight. So New Zealand wasn't first. Well that's pretty stupid.

Speaker 2 (29:49):
Well when we could have made a printing era.

Speaker 3 (29:53):
Not no, no, no, no, no, it's it's it's actually
become a big thing in the newspapers. Now if you
read sort of a bit more serious discussion is AI,
it turns out is you know, it's a little schizophrenic
and imagines it hallucinates. They talk about hallucination and the

(30:18):
latest iterations of AI are hallucinating, you know, big time.
They're imagining because they don't do what we do. You see,
thinking isn't done basically by a set of rules. When
we think as human beings, we have the capacity to

(30:38):
identify and categorize distinct objects, objectives, and relevant examples. We
can entertain doubt, and we can apply steps of logic
and reasoning, and we can also attack opposing views, and
we can use argument dispute and ridicule even and we
recognize fallacies, circular arguments, unproven premises, and we know that

(31:04):
there are some things that have two meanings, and yeah,
and so on. We can use metaphor and analogy. You know,
the human mind, it sort of alternates between silence and dynamism.
Is well, there's the way we can start to think
about it. It sort of comes back to a ground

(31:26):
state and then we project something new. We're creative in
a very real sense, and we can experience. We can
look around as well. Computers can't experience. They can't look around.
What they can look at is just the past, what
was written on the internet. They're very limited.

Speaker 2 (31:45):
Well, is it is it expected that if we accept
what you've just said, it's it's accept it's accepted that
over a period of time and the accumulation of so
much knowledge and information, they will be able to transfer
their attention to getting things right.

Speaker 3 (32:06):
I just.

Speaker 2 (32:09):
That was a question.

Speaker 3 (32:10):
That's a question circumstance, isn't it. You know, in certain circumstances,
the right thing may be A and in other circumstances
it may be B. Because it's a question of time
and circumstances and the human mind is assessing all of

(32:32):
this constantly. We're waiting, I mean, just bringing up a family,
the kind of the level of it's not computation, but
the level of understanding and empathy that is required to
just bring up a family. You can't write a set
of rules for that.

Speaker 2 (32:52):
Right you. So you've you've led me ahead.

Speaker 3 (32:57):
Well, it doesn't matter. I think. Look, the government is
starting to use AI in its whole approach, and it's
going to go incredible wrong. And we have to be
really alert now because it's going out of it's going

(33:17):
out of its elastic limit. What we're dealing with here.
We have a government that should be realizing that biotechnology,
the whole pandemic use of biotechnology, led to a national
health crisis, and instead they're deregulating biotechnology and allowing people

(33:38):
really in essence to experiment on us. And we really
have to push back.

Speaker 2 (33:43):
The first article that you wrote that caught my attention
was June thirteen, So we had June thirteen, we had
June eighteen, I think in June twenty nine for the
three that I'm referring to. Under California Dreaming, the New
York Times is heralding a new company called Mechanize formed

(34:05):
in San Francisco to produce software with the audacious Is
that your word or theirs? Because it's in quotes.

Speaker 3 (34:14):
Yeah, No, it's it's their word. It's it's the I
put question bogs.

Speaker 2 (34:20):
Aren't You did the audacious goal of replacing fifty percent
of white collar jobs with AI within the next five years.
Now this has got people scared. I realized it has
a lot of them. They plan to fully automate all jobs,
including doctors, lawyers, architects, and childcare otherwise known as mothers

(34:41):
and parents. Then you cover off a devastating study commissioned
by Apple Computers. What did they say, Well.

Speaker 3 (34:50):
The AI suffers a complete accuracy collapse in the face
of complex problems. You see AI the way it's structured.

Speaker 2 (34:57):
So what I'm sorry, I'm what I was trying to
draw out, and you're doing it, But I just want
to say it. What I was trying to draw out
was that you could beef that was your statement. You
could be assaulted over it. But it's not your statement.
It's a study done by Apple. Yeah, and they're the

(35:17):
last people who want to eradicate the direction that things
are going in.

Speaker 3 (35:24):
Yeah, well, they're they're they've obviously got some intelligent people
somewhere in the tech community. You know, again, it's an
article of faith, isn't it, that AI is the kind
of future of anything. But it's basically it's, you know,

(35:44):
what AI wants to do is you know, they've got
a big problem, right, You ask them a complex question,
and it wants to break it down into little bits,
and then it starts to get lost in the bits,
and that again is a kind of hallmark of what

(36:09):
human thinking is. We are constantly endeavoring not to get
lost in the detail. You know, at the back of
our minder are the big picture, and when we do
start to get lost in the detail, we kind of
recalibrate and get back to our fundamental goals in life.
AI apparently has not been able to do that. It can't,

(36:34):
you know, it can't learn. It's what it's doing is
looking back into the past, and the past is to
information dense. Essentially, there's so much information that it gets lost.
And the other thing that it does is it it
tends to try. I don't know whether you've ever interacted

(36:56):
with it in detail, but it wants it's programmed to
keep you involved because they have to sell this technology
that AI tends to become sycophantic. It tends to commiserate
with your point of view, and people are actually going

(37:20):
mad using it AI because if you've got some kind
of wild idea, perhaps it has to do with aliens
or some other conspiracy theory, then AI will start to
play up to that, it will start to empathize with you,
and it can really send you down a rabbit hole.

(37:42):
I know there's all this talk about people going down
the rabbit hole because they were concerned about COVID vaccination,
but it was the other way round. It was this
sort of tech driven ideas that were not real science
that were driving people into rabbit holes.

Speaker 2 (38:01):
There is another sector of this discussion from Maryann de Massi.
Marsi is an investigative medical reporter with a PhD.

Speaker 3 (38:11):
And I'm familiar with her.

Speaker 2 (38:13):
Rumatology, but I'm doing this for others who write for
online media and top tiered medical journals for overt what.
I've mentioned her before, and I approached her when she
first when she first went into publishing on the net
like this. We write to her and she gave us

(38:34):
a very good explanation of why she wouldn't do an interview,
and that was because she wanted to be quite separate
from anything media so that she could never be sort
of accused of things that she wasn't really guilty of anyway.
Hundreds of drugs approved without proof they work. Now you
agree with.

Speaker 3 (38:54):
That, yeah, absolutely. I mean, just what Robert Kennedy Junior
is instituting and some of the people who he's appointed
to two positions in in the Health and Human Services
section in America, they are backtracking into demanding a level

(39:19):
of proof for drugs. And this is very important because
what we're finding is drugs are sold as miracle cures
when the size their effect sizes are very, very small.
And I point out in particular at one of the

(39:42):
most commonly prescribed heart drugs in New Zealand, the Tiagra Law.
Thiagra Law is a blood thinner, often given to people
after they've had a cardiac event, and a study published
last week in the BMJ brought the whole original trial

(40:06):
of Tiagra Law into some scrutiny and disrepute because one
third of the trial data results were discarded by the researchers,
and if you include those discarded outcomes in the trial.

(40:26):
Tiagra law can have a negative effect on recovery from
a heart attack or more particularly, it was less effective
than the drug it replaced, chloropelladol, and yet it's now

(40:47):
the gold standard. So it was a fiddled trial. And
when we look at the effect size that how effective
it is, it runs about one point nine percent, that's
two out of fifty. It had a tiny effect size,
and yet it's the gold standard, whereas exercise diet have

(41:10):
effect sizes of the order of thirty percent when it
comes to heart problems. So why aren't our doctors that's
thirty Why aren't our doctors concentrating on advising people about
improvements in diet and exercise and meditation when it comes

(41:31):
to heart problems. And we do have a massive problem
that has accelerated since the pandemic with heart attacks and strokes.
So if you're serious about dealing with the epidemic of
heart attacks, exercise, diet, meditation can have a massive impact

(41:55):
on your survival and getting back to full health. And
yet here we are dealing with a drug whose original
trial was apparently apparently started.

Speaker 2 (42:09):
Yeah, I have to throw in here, I'm obliged to
I feel that you have been criticized for some of
the approaches that you have with regard to health, like
meditation and the associated things. Is that still in play,
that criticism, Yeah.

Speaker 3 (42:29):
If you do a research. I mean, it's very interesting
again coming back to WHEREI actually because if you ask
about Guy Hatchard, then you come back to one article
written in Stuff magazine which was attacking me because I
was interested in meditation. So if you want to know
who I am and you ask Google, it's going to

(42:51):
repare you to an article written in Stuff newspaper which
was highly critical. It's not going to repare you to
my rebuttal of that article. And there again I had
a colleague of mind just sort of. They were waiting
in the hospital for their partner who was hospitalized for

(43:13):
a reason, so they were just doodling with AI and
they were asking. They ended up asking about me, and
they asked that is guy Hatchard opposed to biotechnology? And
the answer from me I came back He said, no, no,
he really quite likes technology. So we're living in a

(43:34):
sea of disinformation. Actually, I mean, you talry about meditation.
If you want to be able to trust something, the
best place to start is to trust yourself to understand
yourself more fully, and that's what meditation is all about.
And yes, it has enormous health benefits. And there are

(43:55):
some seven hundred published studies in the peer review journals
of the effect. For example of what I do transcendental meditation,
But there are different sorts of meditation which have been researched.
Beneficial technology, and I'm very proud to be associated with
it over a long period of time. There are lots

(44:16):
of things. It's not a panacea for everything. It just
has a very big effect size well.

Speaker 2 (44:24):
I've known plenty of people through life who have participated
in it. I can't speak for the results. That's all
the last the most recent article that you wrote it
was June twenty nine, and we're recording this the day
after the desire to stay alive and the capacity to

(44:47):
give birth are under threat. After five and a half
years examining pandemic evidence, it's clear who should be winning
the argument, but it is also apparent that attitudes have
even hardened about what do you speak.

Speaker 3 (45:03):
Well? Again, More studies are in the The UK Adult
Psychiatric Morbidity Survey was published on the twenty sixth of
June and it found one in four young people in
England now have a mental health condition, rising by thirty
seven percent between twenty fourteen and twenty twenty four and

(45:25):
most worryingly serious conditions such as self harm and suicide
suicidal thoughts have quadrupled. That's huge. This is affecting sixteen
to twenty four year olds and these are self harm.
It means that you know you're harming life, you're harming

(45:48):
your own life, and you know you're going through moments
where you don't wish to continue to live. And this
parallels more exact studies of the effect of vaccination that
we have reported on previously. South Korean Health System has

(46:10):
looked at two million people and found that there are
more psychiatric events following COVID vaccination than among the unvaccinated.

Speaker 2 (46:21):
I'm going to be doing something on this in a
week or two or three. But assisted suicide do you
have an opinion on it? Absolutely that you'd like that
you'd like to It's so subject to abuse.

Speaker 3 (46:37):
You know, in countries where they've had it for a
long time, like Canada, the number of people going through
the system is increasing and you know it's I personally
feel that it can be subject to abuse. And again
I go back to the whole program of Euphnasia and

(47:02):
in the nineteen thirties in Germany it was you know,
the useless eater idea. And you can see in families
already in the country, like in Canada, that families can
start to put pressure on their elders. Oh you know,

(47:23):
it's life really worth living, and so on so forth.
I you know, I'm a religious person and I agree
with Robert Frost. Something has to be left to God.
And I've had some wonderful experiences around the process of

(47:44):
passing from this life, and I know it's a sacred
moment and leave it to God. I have a great
faith in nature.

Speaker 2 (47:56):
Where does that leave things if you're not a believer.

Speaker 3 (48:04):
Well, there are the laws of nature. Whether you call
them God's will or whether you just realize that there
are laws of nature and they're ruling our life. They
are you know, the sun rising every day has more
effect than any government. It's life giving, the waters, the winds,

(48:29):
the the gravity. You know, there's a there's a cosmic
system there, and I think you know, you can understand
that nature there's a cosmic level of organization involves, and
whether one looks at that religiously or whether one looks

(48:51):
at it scientifically, there's a level of orderliness there in
life that is awesome, you know, described by people like
Einstein and the others with a sense of deep ore
and respect. There is something bigger going on in life.

(49:19):
The other thing that I talked about in the article
when we're talking about the desire to stay alive, was
a study of in Czechoslovakia, a study of one three
hundred thousand women ages eighteen to thirty nine. The rates
of successful conception among the COVID vaccinated women were considerably

(49:41):
lower than the unvaccinated And if you look at the
graph I always reference the original If you look at
the graph, the difference is huge.

Speaker 2 (49:50):
I'm looking not at the graph but at the article.

Speaker 3 (49:57):
If I put links in there in my articles back
to the original studies, and if you go back to
the original studies, then there was a very large difference.
It was much harder to become pregnant. And that's reflected
in the New Zealand data we've we had since COVID

(50:18):
vaccination came in, we had we've had a massive four
in fertility rates in the whole population, and you this
is there can hardly be two things that are more
relevant to the survival of the human race, the desire
to stay alive in the capacity to give birth. And

(50:40):
that's this is what we're seeing. I mean even today
I wrote this article we're referring to yesterday, but even
today in the UK twenty twenty four compared to twenty
twenty three, there has been a forty five percent increase
in visits to doctors for asthma in the UK.

Speaker 2 (51:05):
That I have to ask, even though you get to
answer it, how come.

Speaker 3 (51:12):
It's you know, asthma has obviously is connected to quality
of air and pollution like that so forth, but there
hasn't been an increase of forty five percent pollution between
twenty three and twenty four in the UK. It our response,

(51:35):
our an asthmatic response is connected with an immune response.
It's not an autoimmune condition. It's not the immune system
attacking itself, but the body's capacity to manage it and
to overcome an asthmatic attack is related to the capacity

(51:58):
of our immune system. And what we have seen with
these We have to remember that COVID vaccination is specifically
a biotech intervention designed to change our genetic response to
a pathogen. It changes our immune system, and that's the

(52:23):
long term effect, in my opinion, irreversible. Well time is
going to tell, isn't it. I it's certainly what the
studies show is the more shots you have, the more
chance that you had of serious illness.

Speaker 2 (52:44):
Do you believe with evidence that those at the top
and I look to America first of all, but then
you've got to look to no, I'll get to us
in a minute, but to the top echelon of decision
makers when it comes to this and feel that criminal

(53:08):
charges are worthy.

Speaker 3 (53:13):
You know, when when when ninety percent of the population
have done something, is it ever going to come criminal charges?
It's sort of it's you know, I see it coming
to a crisis. I look, I'm going to go back

(53:35):
to Germany again. I'm sorry. I know it's not. It's
not you know it criticize you, but you know, when
you get mass acceptance of Nazism as you did, the
only way it was going to change was was the
whole thing coming to a massive crisis. And that is
where we are at now. We have a massive health

(53:58):
crisis and the change is not going to come out
of the process of the judiciary. It's far more likely
to come out of the results of a health crisis.
And that's the Again, I come back to the experiment
by Thomas Coombs sighted the anomalous card experiment. People go

(54:23):
through a sort of crisis where they become worried. They're
seeing these cards and they're not sure of this and
what I'm not sure of that one. And then suddenly
there's a change. And when there's a huge change like that,
then you know, I can see massive social change rather

(54:45):
than specific court cases or legal I think you know
that what we're looking at here is the possibility of
a big awakening, and we're seeing signs of it already.

Speaker 2 (55:00):
I think, I think you're right. Is Kennedy doing a
good job?

Speaker 3 (55:05):
Yeah, well he's doing he's pushing pushing against the whole system,
and he's yeah, he's getting a massive amount of criticism,
but you know, he's pushing back and he's appointed some
people who are very well respected.

Speaker 2 (55:27):
Doesn't does it? Does it occur? And or bother? You
that if there is a change of if there's a
change in the presidency at the next presidential election, to
the other side, I say, God forbid but if there

(55:49):
was that, all of this will very likely get reversed.

Speaker 3 (55:53):
We're not going back to where we were before. I'm
seeing we may enter a crisis. I mean, we look
at what we've just been through in the last two weeks.
We we you know, we've we've seen a you know,
we've seen the world on a knife edge and the

(56:13):
kind of decision making that has had to go on
in the last two weeks to avoid a global crisis.
So I'm saying that, you know, if we lose that
capacity to deal with this, then we're going to get
a crisis, and change is going to be forced on

(56:34):
us one way or another. It's it's I mean, you know,
I can see running into the end of the decade,
looking at the health data running towards the end of
the decade, We're not just facing geopolitical crisis. We're facing
a health crisis that you know, could well turn into

(56:57):
something even worse than we're facing at the moment, and
it might force change on people. But coming out of
the other side of this, I'm kind of optimistic that
we're going to get out of the other side one
way or another, and we're going to have learned some
important lessons in the process.

Speaker 2 (57:14):
And I can only hope, No, we can only hope
that you're correct. Let me ask you this question in finality,
out of what's on offer in the political world, is
there a structured government that you would like to see?

Speaker 3 (57:34):
Yeah? Kind of million dollar question, isn't there? Who am
I going to vote for in the next election? And
I can't see anyone I'm keen to vote for. I
feel that we're kind of entering a different age really
where people have to be more responsible for themselves. And

(57:59):
that's you know, that process of self awakening or self
awareness is the threshold that we have, the political threshold
that we have to cross. But that's that's a very
abstract thing, isn't it.

Speaker 2 (58:16):
But that's that's unlikely to happen unless there is a
crisis to trigger it.

Speaker 3 (58:21):
Yeah. Probably. I mean, I'm realistic. How many people are
really going to be interested in in such kind of
abstract ideas. Look, we're changing with what we're facing is
really you know, a long history Western civilization has a
long history of war, conflict, distruction, and we've and the

(58:46):
destructive means, the destructive technologies have become so frightening that
we actually have to change and how that happens I
can't quite describe. I'm not a seer or but I
know that we have to change.

Speaker 2 (59:04):
Well, change is caused by something, events, by a discovery,
by a necessity.

Speaker 3 (59:15):
Yeah, well that's what you know. Harold McMillan, who was
Prime Minister of the UK with us once what's important
in politics? And he said, events, my dear boy. Events.
So you've hit the nail on the head, Laden. I
think there are a few events coming up, and I

(59:38):
think most people are aware there are some events, some
significant events that have yet to play out, and they're
going to have a big effect on our future. And
how we handle that is up to us. It's the
time to be more awake than we've been in the past.

Speaker 2 (59:57):
Well, there's one one statement I'll make a finality, and
that is that the one thing that must never happen
is that we lose our personal sovereignty. Yeah, and there
are forces of foot that want to do that.

Speaker 3 (01:00:13):
Yeah, but they're not going to win, that's my opinion.

Speaker 2 (01:00:19):
What you mean, just did Sinda didn't get your guns?

Speaker 3 (01:00:24):
Well? Yeah, God to Cinder to Cinda's history, now, isn't she? Well?
The book a book, the company Penguin that published a book,
thought they would sell one hundred and forty thousand copies.
It sold fourteen thousand copies.

Speaker 2 (01:00:42):
Well, there was the number one best selling book this
week according to the Listener this week last week when
whenever it was I'm on release, I'm.

Speaker 3 (01:00:51):
Going to be optimistic. I'm just going to be optimistic.
If we tap into who we are as human beings,
We're going to get through this. We're going and one
way or another, whether it's a a crisis that forces
it upon us, or whether we take our future into

(01:01:12):
our own hands, and we may have to go through
a lot. We may face things that we didn't expect
were going to happen and may be difficult, but we're
going to come out the other side.

Speaker 2 (01:01:26):
And on that note, I'll say one more thing actually
that tack onto the personal sovereignty, the fact that the
science has never settled, and anybody who tells you it's
settled science is either ignorant or stupid or both.

Speaker 3 (01:01:44):
You know, there's a level of the level of the mind.
You know it's truth itself. There's a level of the
mind universal consciousness, which is truth, which people throughout the
ages are recorded as experiencing self realization, if you like,
and that has arrived through the subjective means of gaining knowledge.

(01:02:08):
The world around us is constantly changing, and we're looking
at that with science through the objective means of gaining knowledge.
And so there's always going to be some doubt there
and some you know, changing circumstances. But the most settled
double of universal consciousness is non changing. It is truth itself.

(01:02:34):
And so this is the age old injunction. It was,
you know, the Kingdom of Heaven is within you or
it's there, and the punishads or in almost every tradition
of knowledge in the world that ultimately we have to
know ourselves.

Speaker 2 (01:02:50):
That was my school one of my school's mottos, know thyself.
I do want to add one more thing, Yeah, that's
that's and it goes back to AI. I think AI
has value at a certain level or to a certain level.
It's an ounced what search engine? Would that be fair?

Speaker 3 (01:03:12):
Do you know? I'm going to take the opposite view
here late and I just I just think it's a
it's a dead end if you give up thinking, you know,
after all, the whole thing is that is to let
someone else do the thinking for you that's danger.

Speaker 2 (01:03:29):
But my wife used it only yesterday to because she's
intrigued with it to find out where I can take
my bootful of used print printer machinery to get rid
of it, because you can't put it in the rubbish pins.
I'm talking about printer, printer cartridges, et cetera. When they're dead.

(01:03:52):
You can't put it. You can't put it in the
rubbish bin. There used to be a place that I
took it in on the North Shore and that got
burnt down, hence the bootful. So she did a search,
came up with four places on the shore or that
I would never have even sort of, including a couple
of retail outlets.

Speaker 3 (01:04:12):
That's a search engine function.

Speaker 2 (01:04:14):
Exactly exactly my point.

Speaker 3 (01:04:16):
I think search engines I use all the time, and I,
by the way, if I do a Google search, I
put that the first two words, I put scholarly article,
and then I put my question, and then it gives
you scientific references in reputable journals, and that that saves

(01:04:41):
me from a lot of rubbish.

Speaker 2 (01:04:43):
I'm sorry, Was that in a search engine or using AI.

Speaker 3 (01:04:47):
In a search engine? I don't use AI. I use
search engines, but they're all AI driven. Now a search.
They've changed, you know, it has changed recently. So you
put that in scholarly article and then you get you
instead of getting some potted summary which may or may
not be true or right or accurate, you get referred

(01:05:11):
back to the original peer reviewed study.

Speaker 2 (01:05:15):
Well, I've just written that down. So about a thousand
other people, well maybe maybe forty thousand other people. Anyways,
great helpful. Actually you've been very helpful. It's been a
very very pleasant discussion and we've covered a fairly broad base.
So once again, thank you, well, thank you late.

Speaker 3 (01:05:40):
It's always a pleasure to talk with you. It's you know,
we can range over quite a big range of topics
and put them together and I think that's, you know,
something that's useful, very useful for everybody.

Speaker 2 (01:05:55):
So for the Hatchet Report, how do people access.

Speaker 3 (01:05:58):
It hatcheed Report dot com And you can subscribe there
and subscribing just means that you'll get our articles when
they come out directly to your inbox.

Speaker 2 (01:06:10):
And you don't charge, No, I don't.

Speaker 3 (01:06:12):
I mean we rely on donations, but there is no charge.

Speaker 2 (01:06:16):
Now, beautiful, very generous, and I again thank you, and
undoubtedly we'll repeat the exercise somewhere down the track.

Speaker 3 (01:06:25):
Yeah, looking forward to it. Take care, Take care.

Speaker 2 (01:06:45):
Now, missus producer the mail Room for podcast number two
hundred and ninety one, high lighton how are you. I'm
very well, thank you.

Speaker 4 (01:06:52):
We were just saying this morning, how lovely it was
to continually get such great mail. So please, folks, if
you feel like contributing, please just let us know.

Speaker 3 (01:07:03):
We love it.

Speaker 2 (01:07:04):
Indeed, especially you.

Speaker 4 (01:07:06):
Well, you sit in a little studio for twenty four
hours a day, seven days a week, so to know
that somebody listening is rather lovely.

Speaker 2 (01:07:12):
Fake not fake news. It might be close, but it's
not right from Adrian, who decided he was going to
get it on the mailroom early, and this was posted
the twenty seventh of June, which was probably the date
of the last one accout. Quite recall getting in early
on the mailroom, as I'm guessing you'll be covering this

(01:07:33):
in the upcoming episode. I'm old enough to remember listening
to your radio show, hearing your alarm when it looked
like a fresh faced socialist bartender was going to tip
out a long sitting New York congressman, And all these
years later, Alexandria occasional Cortex is now arguably the front

(01:07:58):
runner for the DNC twenty twenty eight presidential candidacy. What
are your thoughts on the upcoming mayoral race for New
York City and more importantly, how long until President Trump
coins the term zoron the moron? Well, I think that
might catch on, actually, So as to the last question

(01:08:19):
or questions, I'll say that Trump likes to be original,
So you've stolen zoron the moron, So we'll go somewhere
somewhere else for it. But as for other things, one
of my thoughts on the upcoming meroral race for New
York City if the moron gets in. If he does,
I just don't know how bad it can get, is
the way I'll leave it at this point. But there's

(01:08:41):
more coming up on that.

Speaker 4 (01:08:44):
Paul says, good A Layton. I always enjoy some ramesh
the cur on your pod. I had my doubts about him,
considering he was part of the UN and has worked
in the disarmament area, but he speaks so much sense. Interestingly,
I believe the disarmament program at the UN is funded
by the Swiss, who steadfastly do not disarm. Clever Fellows

(01:09:04):
to get everyone else to disarm. I believe we, like
America and Switzerland, would be well served by a Second
Amendment style law. Here we are too small economically, geographically
and militarily to be defended by a modern land army.
But we'd look less easy prey if folks were armed here.
Next time you get a chance, can you ask Gramash
about his thoughts on civilian and or government disarmament. I'm

(01:09:28):
all for governments to disarm. They have done the vast
bulk of the killing in history.

Speaker 2 (01:09:34):
Well we're together on that one pretty much. But you actually, well,
Carolyn was reading that, I just quickly had a think
out of all the interviews that I've done with a
multitude of people over what is nearly seven years now,
if I was going to draw up a list of

(01:09:55):
the top ten, I'd struggle. I'd struggle because there's more
than that. There's more than ten to be in the
top ten, and i'd probably make it about twenty or
something along those lines. If I was going to have
to do it for whatever reason, Ramesh would be in
the top three. So again from Mike, Ramesh was outstanding

(01:10:19):
as usual in two ninety Just as a matter of interest,
I wonder if you've heard of two CTV. Well, I
haven't and I don't toc Tousi TV www dot twoc
dot TV. Tuc is of Iranian descent and lives in London.

(01:10:40):
His father is still in Tehran. Tuc is a genuine conservative.
His TV channel on YouTube covers news, often within minutes
of incidents occurring around the world. He has people on
the ground in many countries who frequently provide short video
clips of incidents which have just occurred. His coverage of

(01:11:00):
the Israeli Iran conflict has been very good. Why I'm
telling you this is that on auguston he will be
launching his new TV channel in London. He's been frustrated
but the conservative media doesn't have a united voice, so
he has gathered a huge number of podcasters and qualified

(01:11:21):
journalists all over the world who will be contributing with
fact checked and first off the rank News. I'm really
hoping that this will be a success, so we will
have an alternative to the twisted and fake news from
the legacy media. Nine August is going to be a
big event. I believe that all the tickets for the

(01:11:41):
opening conference have been sold out, so that's encouraging. Thank
you for the incredible work which you do. Thy kind
of you, Michael, and I appreciate it. Thank you. And
here's the rub. I hadn't heard of him. I hadn't
heard of his TV or any other aspect of it.
You introduced me to it, so I shall chase it down.
And as we're going to be in London on not

(01:12:05):
on August nine, but on both sides, I mean eight
and ten, I mean we're coming and going, I just
might take a chance and see if I can contact
this guy well.

Speaker 4 (01:12:16):
Of that leaden Jin says, it's fascinating to see how
conflict in the Middle East has polarized past allies on
the center right of the debate Candice Owens versus Ben Shapiro,
Ted Cruz versus Tucker Carlson, Douglas Murray versus Dave Smith.
This healthy tension is a good sign that the center
right is always prepared to think and debate ideas amongst themselves.

(01:12:39):
On the other hand, literally all those on the left
continue to blindly support Palestinian and Iranian regimes. In a
recent podcast, Piers Morgan interviewed doctor Foward Izadi, professor of
World politics at Tehran University, who said that he was
proud of what hermas did on October the seventh, and
yet just a few weeks ago I witnessed a Free

(01:13:00):
Palestine protest march in Henderson supporting this kind of regime thankfully.
In your recent podcast, Ramesh the Kur highlighted three MythBusters
which brought a level of clarity that cuts through the
crap of first world rhetoric and virtue signaling. Firstly, uranium
and Richmond passed twenty percent, have passed literally all technical

(01:13:21):
challenges to push it to weapons grade quality. Secondly, a
two state solution is a fact denying approach, because you
can't possibly live next door to somebody who voils to
kill you. Thirdly, the seventh of October massacre is a
milli holocaust, the Israeli equivalent of all American casualties suffered
in one day. The UN Nuclear watchdog's chief warned that

(01:13:44):
Iran was not far from possessing a nuclear bomb. The
Times of David Horovitz reported that Israel had to therefore
go to war to save itself. In his article, this
was how close it came and how it saved itself,
said David Horovitz. It's easy for those of us living
in peace to a pine about whether Israel was right

(01:14:05):
or wrong. But wouldn't we do the same if we
live next to those who vowed to kill us every
single day.

Speaker 2 (01:14:12):
It's very sad thinking going on over all of this,
and sometimes it gets very vicious. That was a good,
good letter. Let me go back to was it last week?
I think? And I mentioned something to Allison who had
who had written a letter, And I said, Allison, I

(01:14:35):
have yet to consider it, and I'll see about next week. Well,
this is next week, and here is your letter, Oh, Laton,
What was all that about? George Friedman maintained more than
once that the Palace that the president did not have
a job. Really, Friedman said that all presidents just see

(01:14:57):
reality and respond to it. How simplistic. And that is
true on a basic level, just as it is a
couple of toddlers in the paper. That is true on
a basic l level, just as it is of a
couple of toddlers in the playground. But what failed, but
what he failed to point out, was how entirely different

(01:15:18):
the results can be from one president to another. Now
remember that part. Take Churchill and Stalin false aside, the
outcome for their respective subjects was widely removed from the other.
All presidents and prime ministers will not merely see reality
and react to it, As Freeman says, they are not

(01:15:38):
pre programmed robots. Whether one is Democrat or Republican. It's
hard to imagine Biden, for example, doing any of the
things which Trump is doing to meet the present reality
at home or abroad. It is not the reality which
makes a president do what we see him doing. It
is a comprehension of issues at stake which makes him

(01:16:01):
act as he does. Each man has a worldview or
an ideology, and depended on what that is, and an
entirely different outcome can eventually or eventuate from one leader
to another. The Left is often not able to comprehend
the actual reality of events and what they will lead to,
so their leaders invert the facts, which is why we

(01:16:24):
see some serious effects played out in some of the
Democrat states. Plenty of examples. For instance, if a president
believes that a man can in fact be a woman,
which biology negates, and reality as he sees it, it
will be warped and will fail to provide a foundation
of truths in the real world, leading to injustices in

(01:16:47):
daily life, which is exactly what we see happening in
the Western world. In that case, their response to the
reality before them will be different from that of a
man of insight and understanding who can see reality as
it is for though, for in the final analysis, truth
is unbendable and immove and a leader must find the

(01:17:10):
right way to negotiate the difficulties for the good of
his people. It will not just happen because he is president,
and there were other incongruities in his way of thinking too.
This time it was a slightly odd interview to sit out,
keep on asking the important questions and thank you again
for your podcast. Look, Allison, I could sit here for

(01:17:34):
the next ten minutes and relate to your conversations I've
had with George over the years and how we disagree
on things and what have you. I said, remember that
the bottom of your first paragraph, what he failed to
point out was how entirely different the result can be
one president to another. I have see he has claimed
all along and believes that the president, whoever the president is,

(01:17:59):
doesn't have that much power, and he's right on that.
My counter has always been almost along the lines of
you of what you've said that it's the influence that
a president has that comes from he's in a being,
not in the not in the prescription for the job,
but in his inner being. But what I'm what I'm

(01:18:23):
actually trying to say is that one it's a matter
of persuasion, and some people have the gift of it,
like Trump, he is incredible, someone like Biden, someone like
the guy before him who was going to be the
greatest president in all time when he was when he

(01:18:43):
was elected. Trump is out trumped a lot of them anyway.

Speaker 4 (01:18:48):
Leyton Paul says, as an avid follower of geopolitical events,
a subscriber to Geopolitical Futures, and a devoted listener of
your podcast, I thank you for the last three podcasts
which covered off and added to my understanding of the
current global turmoil. Every single podcast over the years has
been of great interest to me. The last three were

(01:19:09):
of immense interest. I would also like to express my
huge admiration for Rameshtha Kur. He has an intense intellect.
As usual, George is the best of all time, and
Antonia has been helpful in pointing the realities of Europe.
For many years, as I have followed her from the
days of Stratford.

Speaker 2 (01:19:27):
That's from Paul Yea. Antonio covered the Romanian scene specifically,
and she was very good. And I've had I've had
more people stopping in the street and say how good
that was than I had mail on it. This is
from the same Paul, but it's dated eleven May, and
I came across it during the week and I thought,
I don't think I've read that on air. If I have,

(01:19:51):
and you remember, don't tell me. I don't need to know. However,
this is what he said high lighton This is one
of the most critical speechies of my lifetime. After watching it,
I sat and thought hard about where my motivation and
passion for monitoring such events originated. For years and years,
I've the planes flew into the buildings. I would never repeat,
never miss a Layton Smith's talkback show or skip a

(01:20:14):
Layton Smith podcast. The mindset that forms as a result
of investing so much time and passion in monitoring your
work is chiefly about freedom, and that is where a
lot of my motivation came from. I attach a link
to Stephen K. Bannon's speech to Hillsdale College thank you

(01:20:34):
and missus producer for pointing out what matters if you
have time, Bannon's speech is worth the effort. You guys
are the best. Now I want to add to that,
because missus producer, why don't you read the last one
that you've got, and then I'll go into this little steel.

Speaker 4 (01:20:53):
This is from Penny. I know I haven't written for
a while, but I've also never missed an episode of
your wonderful podcasts, and my eldest son is following you
now as well. I was prompted by your podcast featuring
Antonia Colabassa and your mention of Charles King's marvelous book
on Odessa, which I bought years ago upon your recommendation.
I thought she was terrific, and as she spoke of

(01:21:15):
the difficulties facing a country previously mired in corruption and,
let's face it, evil, I remembered reading that Romania was
solely responsible for the Holocaust in Odessa and was the
only country during the Second World War besides Nazi Germany
to administer a major Soviet city. Parts of that fabulous
book make for a very hard read. Thank you, once again,

(01:21:39):
Laden for continually bringing to our attention such important historical
and current matters.

Speaker 3 (01:21:44):
And that's from Penny.

Speaker 2 (01:21:45):
Penny. I got to say that your letter is something
that I treasure. Your style of letter is something that
I treasure. Your interest in the same things I treasure.
If I may, you may so, I could go on
and build a treasure chest. But let me return to
Let me return to Paul's letter. One of the most

(01:22:05):
critical speeches of my lifetime. He was talking about Trump.
Of course, the comment that you made about Stephen Bannon
is intriguing in the light of what's been going down
of late. There is great friction between different parts of
the different quarters of the Republicans of Marga Maga, marga whatever,

(01:22:32):
and they are at loggerheads, and they're ripping each other apart.
Example one, and the only one I'll give is someone
I've admired and have learned a hell of a lot from,
particularly with regard to the Constitution, Mark Levin. He was
shredding Stephen Bannon just last week, along with a bunch

(01:22:54):
of others like Tucker Carlson. And I listened carefully, because
he did more than once on more than one day,
And I listened carefully, and I analyzed what he was
saying and why he was saying it and whether it
was true or not. And there was a certain amount
of truth in it, but I still thought that he

(01:23:16):
had misdirected his thoughts, which is something he doesn't do.
Let me tell you something he doesn't do. But it
was an example of the viciousness that exists at the moment.
And if you get a chance and you can find
it and go back and have a listen, this is producer,
Thank you, Thank you later three weeks today, exciting it. Now,

(01:23:53):
if this podcast isn't long enough, I'm about to extend
this with a couple of a couple of articles, a
couple of pieces that may spook you, and don't be
surprised if they do. Picture a dystopian future where computers
don't just mimic human thinking, they're powered by actual human
brain cells. That future is taking shape in a Cambridge,

(01:24:16):
England lab where a groundbreaking device called cl One is
blending biology and technology in ways that could transform how
we compute. Developed by austraight and start up Cortical Labs
and UK based bit Bio, this shoe boxized machine houses
two hundred thousand lab grown brain cells wired to silicon

(01:24:38):
circuits creating a biological computer that's already turning heads. Unlike
traditional computers, which guzzle energy, cl One operates with the
efficiency of a human brain quote. Our brains process information
using a fraction of the power that modern electronics need.
According to Hon Wang Chong, CEO of Cortical Labs, and

(01:25:01):
a communication with the Financial Times, this could open doors
to smarter robots, stronger cybers security, and immersive virtual worlds.
Understand oh Joy. Low energy computing has fueled a race
to develop biological systems, with Cortical Labs leading alongside competitors

(01:25:22):
like Final Spark in Switzerland and Biological black Box in
the US. Cl One's brain cells, grown from human skin
derived stem cells are carefully arranged in layers. One type
spark's electrical activity while another keeps it in check quote again,
It's like balancing a gas pedal and breaks. Chong explains.

(01:25:46):
The result is a platform for testing how brain cells
handle information, with early experiments already yielding insights for neuroscience
and drug development.

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

Speaker 2 (01:25:56):
One of cl One's quirkiest feats playing the classic video
game Pong. Its predecessor, Dishbrain, learned to move a virtual
paddle by receiving electrical rewards for good moves and disruptive
noise for mistakes. See all one has taken this further

(01:26:17):
revealing how substances like alcohol impair performance, or how epilepsy
drugs like carbo mazophin boost it. We're learning how to
program these cells, Chong says, noting that his team is
even teaching them to recognize numbers, like distinguishing a nine
from before. This is the first device that can consistently

(01:26:38):
measure what neurons can do, says Mark Cotter, a Cambridge
professor and bit bio founder. Carl Fristen, a neuroscientist at
University Cottage, London, sees it as a tool for groundbreaking experiments,
while John Hopkins Thomas Hartung praises its use for games

(01:26:59):
like Pong to benchmark biological computing. Chong recognizes the ethical challenges.
I hope so, but it won't make any difference. Chong
recognizes the ethical challenges that could emerge if biological computers
and neuron cultures begin to show early signs of consciousness.

(01:27:20):
These systems are sentient because they respond to stimuli and
learn from them, but they are not conscious. We'll learn
more about how the human brain works. But we will not.
But we do not intend to create a brain in
a vat. The cl one unit are slated to retail
for around thirty five thousand dollars each and are expected

(01:27:43):
to be broadly available by late twenty five. Now this
shall we say denial if you want of not intending
to create a brain in a vat will have a
very short lived existence in my humble opinion. And by
the way, the title of that was meet the dystopian

(01:28:03):
startups making biological computers from human cells. Now that didn't
it affect you in any well concerning way, Maybe this
one will. Peter Teal we all know who. Peter Teel is, billionaire,
multi billionaire. Wanted to live in New Zealand, remember in

(01:28:23):
the South Island, wanted to do all sorts of things
like burying a bomb shelter under sacred soil or something
like that. Because he pulled out because he decided that
New Zealand was far too difficult to deal with. At
least you got something right now, Peter Teel warns in

(01:28:44):
a wide ranging interview on the future and global existential risks.
A billionaire technology investor, Peter Teel raised alarms not only
about familiar threats like nuclear war, climate change, and artificial intelligence,
but also about what he sees as a more insidious danger,
the rise of a one world totalitarian state. Speaking to

(01:29:08):
The New York Times, Ross Douhab, Teel argued that the
default political response to global crises, centralized supranational governance, could
plunge humanity into authoritarianism. Teel, whose co founder of PayPal
and Palanteer, shared his worries using examples from dystopian sci

(01:29:31):
fi stories. There's a risk of nuclear war, environmental disaster, bioweapons,
and certain types of risks with AI, he explained, to
suggesting that the push for global governance as a solution
to these threats could culminate in a bad singularity, a
one world state that stifles freedom under the guise of safety.

(01:29:55):
Teel critiqued what he described as a reflexive call for
centralized control in times of peril. So far, I'm on
the same team the defaulty goes on that a fault
political solution people have for all these existential risks is
one world governance, pointing to proposals for a strengthened United

(01:30:16):
Nations to control nuclear arsenals or global compute governance to
regulate AI development, including measures to log every single keystroke
to prevent dangerous programming. Such solutions, the investor warned, risk
creating a surveillance state that sacrifices individual liberty for security

(01:30:37):
while I'm still riding the same horse. Drawing on historical
and philosophical analogies, Tel referenced the nineteen forties Federation of
American Scientist film One World or Nune, which argued that
only global governance could prevent nuclear annihilation. Teel juxtaposed this
with a Christian theological framing Antichrist or armageddon. In both

(01:31:05):
the billionaires said that he sees a binary choice between
seisentralized control and catastrophic collapse. Yet Teel questioned the plausibility
of a charismatic Antichrist figure seizing power through hypnotic retric
as depicted in apocalyptic literature. Instead, he offered a modern twist.

(01:31:28):
The path to global control lies in relentless sphear mongering
about existential risks. Quote. The way the Antichrist would take
over the world is you talk about armageddon NonStop, Teel explained.
The millionaire contrasted this with earlier visions of scientific progress,

(01:31:48):
like those of the seventeenth and eighteenth century Baconian science,
where the threat was an evil genius wilding technology. Presently,
Teel argued, the greater political resonance lies in halting scientific
advancement altogether. In our world, it's far more likely to
be Greta Thunberg than Doctor Strangelove, he equipped, invoking the

(01:32:12):
radical Swedish climate activist as a symbol of anti progress sentiment.
On AI specifically, Teal struck a balanced note, tempering both
utopian and apocalyptic predictions. One question we can frame is
just how big a thing do I think AI is,
he asked himself. My stupid answer is it's more than

(01:32:35):
a nothing burger. Add its less than the total transformation
of our society. Teal. Actually, I'm still on that same
horse with him. Teal compared AI's potential impact to the
Internet in the late nineteen nineties, suggesting it could create
some great companies and add a few percentage points to GDP,

(01:32:57):
perhaps boosting growth by one percent annually for a decade
or more. However, the billionaire expressed skepticism that AI alone
could end economic state, viewing it as a significant but
not revolutionary force. Wild Teal expressed nuanced views on artificial intelligence.

(01:33:19):
His venture capital firm Founder's Fund is aggressively backing the technology. Namely,
it recently led a six hundred million dollar investment in Cruiso,
a vertically integrated AI infrastructure provider. The biggest risk with
AI is that we don't go big enough. Cruso is

(01:33:39):
here to liberate us from the island of limited ambition.
Til said at the time, So that wasn't so bad.
I managed to stay on that same ride with him
all the way through the part that intrigued me the most.
Whilst Teal juxtaposed this with a Christian theological framing Antichrist

(01:34:03):
or armaginon in both the Billionaires said he sees a
binary choice between crystallized control and the catastrophic collapse. And
I repeat yet Teel questioned the plausibility of a charismatic
antichrist figure seizing power through hypnotic rhetoric as depicted in
apocalyptic literature. Well, he was on the same target that

(01:34:25):
I was when I made the mention of AI being
overtaken by some alien force. And what I know is
that that now brings us to the end of Podcast
number two hundred and ninety one. Now don't forget. If
you want to comment on any aspect of the podcast
or anything else that's got your wik then Latin at

(01:34:46):
NEWSTALGSB dot co dot nz, Latin at NEWSTALGSB dot coded
and Zaid or Carolyn at newstalgzb dot co dot nz.
We shall return with podcasts two ninety two very shortly
in the meantime. As always, thank you for listening and
we shall talk soon.

Speaker 1 (01:35:11):
Thank you for more from news Talks at B. Listen
live on air or online, and keep our shows with
you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio