Leighton Smith Podcast #308 - October 29th 2025 - Professor Robert Clancy - 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. Now the lighton Smith podcast
powered by news.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Talks it B.

Speaker 3 (00:28):
Welcome to podcast three hundred and eight for October twenty nine,
twenty twenty five, which means this year is slipping by
rather rapidly. Or to put it another way, that's only
about six more podcasts to Christmas, which might not be enough.
I as an example, I've just received the a poll

(00:48):
result from Patrick Masham from Democracy Institute and the Daily
Express on the New York City mayor poll. It's not
looking good. It's looking very, very unhealthy. However, over the
last few days, I've consumed as much information on COVID
nineteen as I could, for a variety of reasons, but

(01:10):
specifically so I could spend an hour or so with
Professor Robert Clancy without appearing entirely stupid. I've wanted to
interview Robert Clancy for the last three years, and I
can't explain why it hasn't happened, But now it has.
I'm very pleased to say. There's a book out that's

(01:31):
been I think out for a couple of months, COVID
through Our Eyes, An Australian Story of mistakes, mistreatment and misinformation,
edited by Professor Robert Clancy and by doctor Melissa McCann.
At the beginning of the discussion that we had the interview,
I've run through some detail that I don't want to

(01:53):
Shall we say repeat in front of that play? So
I will quote you the following. The accusation leveled in
this book that the whole of Australia was led down
the wrong road in responding to the COVID pandemic is
accompanied by a disturbing explanation of how that happened. The
US government and the World Health Organization improperly, improperly yielded

(02:16):
to manipulation by the pharmaceutical industry interested only in making money.
Australian governments and health authorities improperly abandoned the Australian Pandemic
Plan for the industry, doctrine dictated by the USA and
the World Health Organization. It's uncomfortable for Australian readers now

(02:37):
to confront the claim that our country was manipulated by
multinational corporations and their beneficiaries. In the theory, the US
government should be independent of profit driven corporate direction. At
our independent sovereign commonwealth makes its own decisions in the
best interests of its people. An understandable reaction is to

(02:59):
deny that it happened, to assert instead that Australia acted
independently of foreign interference and corporate interests. In that case,
it would just have been a fortunate accident for the
global industry that Australia yielded it such massive profits, and
the commentators who were alleged otherwise must have been imagining

(03:20):
something that couldn't have happened. So let me turn to
the back of the book. Of the back cover, let
me turn to a column that was written in The
New York Times earlier in the year, and I only
became aware of it when I read something from Guy
Hatchett's over the weekend. We were badly misled about the

(03:42):
event that changed our lives, And it turns out that
zeynep to Fecki is an opinion columnist with the New
York Times, and that was her headline. We were badly
misled about the event that changed our lives. Since scientists
first began playing around with dangerous pathogens in laboratories. The
world has experienced four or five pandemics, depending on how

(04:03):
you count one of them. The nineteen seventy seven Russian
flu was almost certainly sparked by a research mishap. Some
Western scientists quickly suspected the odd virus had resided in
a lab freezer for a couple of decades, but they
kept mostly quiet for fear of ruffling feathers. Yet, in
twenty twenty, when people started speculating that a laboratory accident

(04:24):
might have been the spark that started the COVID pandemic,
they were treated like cooks and cranks. Many public health
of visuals and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a
conspiracy theory, insisting that the virus had emerged from animals
in a seafood market in wu Han, China. And when
a non profit called EcoHealth Alliance lost to grant because

(04:47):
it was planning to conduct risky research into bat viruses
with Wuhn Institute of Virology, research that if conducted with
lacks safety standards, could have resulted in a dangerous pathogen
leaking out into the world. No fewer than seventy seven
Nobel laureates and thirty one scientific societies lined up to
defend the organization. So the Wuhan research was totally safe

(05:13):
and the pandemic was definitely caused by natural transmission, It
certainly seemed like consensus. We have since learned, however, that
to promote the appearance of consensus, some officials and scientists hid, hid,
or understated crucial facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated

(05:34):
campaigns of supposedly independent voices that even compared notes about
how to hide their communications in order to keep the
public from hearing the whole story. And as for that
Wuhan Laboratories research, the details that have since emerged show
that safety precautions may have been terrifyingly lacks five years

(05:57):
after the onset of the COVID pandemic. It's tempting to
think all of that as ancient history. We learned our
lesson about lab safety and about the need to be
with the public, and now we can move on to
new crises like measles or evolving bird flu. Right wrong.
If anyone needs convincing that the next pandemic is only

(06:20):
an accident, away. Check out a recent paper in cell
Let's Seel, the prestigious scientific journal researches, many of whom
work or have worked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology
that same institution describe taking samples of viruses found in bats, yeah,
the same animal, and experimenting to see if they could

(06:41):
infect human cells and pose a pandemic risk. And it
goes on for about another four foolscap pages. Now, the
reason that I wanted to quote that is because the
man we're about to talk with, Professor Robert Clancy, was
way ahead of the game, along with a handful of others,

(07:02):
and in fact more than most people realize. But certainly
a handful of others at the top of their game.
All of them, many if not most of them, lost
their licenses, got canned, banned, thrown out, whatever the case
may be. Some of them still are unemployed. In this
conversation with Robert Clancy, we discover lots, we discuss heaps,

(07:24):
and some of the things we discussed I didn't know.
In fact, there was a little too much that I
didn't know for my liking. But there is plenty to
be learned in what's upcoming right after this short break.

(07:48):
Leverix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality.
Leverix relieves hay fever and skin allergies or itchy skin.
It's a dual action antihistamine and has a unique nasal
decongestant action. It's fast acting for fast relief and it
works in under an hour and lass for over twenty

(08:09):
four hours. Lebrix is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose,
deals with itchy eyes, and stops sneezing. Leverrix is an
antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality. So next
time you're in need of an effective antihistamine, call into
the pharmacy and ask for Leverx l e v Rix,

(08:30):
Levrix and always read the label. Take as directed and
if symptoms persist, see your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland

(09:05):
Emeritus Professor Clancy has an international reputation in the study
of infection of the airways and gut, the way the
body processes infection, and the development of vaccines to prevent
or modify infection. He was awarded a Doctor of Science
by the University of Newcastle for his studies on infection
and the immune response of mucosal surfaces. He is a

(09:28):
senior clinical immunologist with an ongoing involvement in the management
of immune disorders. Now that's a short one. If you
want a longer one, I could read you. I could
read you just a little bit of this. Professor Clancy
and his team's groundbreaking research into chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
concentrated on the link between the guts and the lung

(09:49):
and was able to provide evidence that the best way
to create immunity against infection in the respiratory tract was
to stimulate the gut immune system, whereby these activated cells
migrate to the lung and make antibodies against organisms responsible
for the infection. Professor Clancy developed the vaccine Bronca Stat

(10:11):
at the University of Newcastle in nineteen eighty five. The
bronco Stat vaccine reduces attacks of acute bronchitis to a
degree of ninety percent. Professor Clancy is emeritus Professor at
the University of Newcastle School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy.
And there's a whole lot more, but it's time to
say welcome to the Late and Smith podcast. Very glad
you agreed to come on. Thank you very much for

(10:33):
having me great pleasure. I know that you had a
long connection with New Zealand. I'd like to start with
you advising us of how strong that was and how
long it lasted.

Speaker 4 (10:47):
Well, I would like to think it continues. I've I
guess I've been look. I've never seen a difference between
New Zealand and New Zealanders and Australians except on the
rugby field, and that is a huge disappointment to me.

(11:08):
We'd make a great team, although I don't think we'd
have too many members from this side of the ditchenet.
When I started the department, when we back again the
new Medical School in Newcastle, I had to make a
number of appointments and a lot of those appointments were

(11:30):
my New Zealand colleagues and friends. I think one of
the things that I've known for a long period of
time is that health professionals are extremely well trained in
New Zealand. No, they're well trained here too, of course,
but in New Zealand they are outstanding. If you look
at my old department that I left in Newcastle when

(11:52):
I retired, two of the three senior people in New Zealanders.
My closest research colleague for twenty five years was doctor
Gerald Pang, who was New Zealand trained. The head of
my diagnostic laboratory was a New Zealand So I can't

(12:15):
get away from New Zealander, and I don't want to
because they're good people. So yeah, I did a lot
of work in New Zealand. I was visiting examiner for
the Medical School. Obviously, the professional bodies that I belonged
to are not Australian, they're Australian and New Zealand. The

(12:36):
College of Physicians, through to the immunology thing. I was
one of the three that began clinically minology in Australia
and that's sort of overflowed and included New Zealand, and
that involved a number of trips and discussions and developments.
So my whole professional and personal life has been as

(12:57):
with so many people in Australia, I think I'm talking
to one at the.

Speaker 3 (13:00):
Moment, guilty. So you've done a lot of backwards and
forwards and I think that's a fine thing. The College
of Physicians that you just mentioned, which is which is binational,
Is it still the organization that it used to.

Speaker 2 (13:18):
Be no, no, no.

Speaker 4 (13:21):
It's when I became a member and then a fellow
of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians. It was a
very different organization, but then medicine was very different. What
happened and what has happened subsequently, is the age of specialization,

(13:43):
and so we had a college that essentially represented physicians
as opposed to surgeons or obstetricians. The surgeons would have
their college, the consultant physicians would have their, and then
as physicians we became a heart specialist, brain specialists, joint specialists,
and all the specialty organizations, including clinically monology developed and

(14:07):
looked after the professional needs, and that took away from
the College of Physicians the importance of the college, and
the college was essentially left in a skeletal form. Prior
to this age of specialization, the most prestigious position in
the country would be the president of the Royal Oscillation

(14:30):
College of Physicians. And now I don't even know the
name of the people who are the presidents because they're
essentially a stamping organization to say you've undergone assessment, you
are now passed to become a physician. So it's really
a gateway to become a physician, and it does very

(14:52):
little else but the great sadness, and I'm not sure
if this is what you're alluding to, is that it's
allowed individuals to creep in that have personal agendas and
use the college for their own purposes, Whereas I think
a number of us have blas over a long period
that the college must have a more important, a more

(15:14):
important role, and rekindle I think some essential aspects of
what it used to have. And this battle has gone
on now for at least ten to fifteen years, doesn't
seem to be any closer to being ended.

Speaker 3 (15:30):
I think that there's more than just what we've mentioned
so far, in various fields, including engineering. Just as an example,
where the organization has been taken over and pushes a well,
one could say, pushes a political agenda, if not a
financial one, or both together, and it is exceedingly disturbing.

(15:54):
I'll give you. I'll give you one example that was
probably the first one that I saw that I noticed
here in New Zealand, and that was and damn it,
I'm going to have to reneg on his name because
it escapes me on the spur of the moment. But
the position is exactly what I'm about to tell you.
That he was involved with climate matters. He was set

(16:18):
up by somebody with an agenda, a disgusting one, and
he was under a great deal of stress, and he
wasn't that old, and I interviewed him a few times.
And when he died unexpectedly, stress was considered to be

(16:39):
a great contributor to that passing. And I've never forgotten it,
and I've never forgiven it, and it will be a
curse on the individual who was involved, I trust. Now,
speaking of speaking of people that we either know or don't,
there's one person who I want to make mention of

(17:01):
now because he's no longer with us, of course, and
that is a professor Thomas Barrodi. Now. I interviewed him
on it was some time back. I interviewed him on
the twenty sixth of August of twenty twenty in podcast
number seventy eight. And I tried more recently to get

(17:21):
in touch and fell foul of my goal. And you
can tell us why Tom died. As you probably know,
two or three weeks ago. Tom and I had worked
together for about thirty years. Tom was probably one of
the brightest people I've come across. He was certainly the

(17:43):
finest gastroenturologist that I've worked with. He had an extraordinary
capacity to see outside the square. And I think it
really is not unlinked to what I was talking about
a few minutes ago, that what has happened in medicine
is that we've become constrained by bureaucracy to fit within

(18:03):
someone's perception of what the rules and regulations of treating
this condition or that condition is. Whereas Tom looked at
the patient, he looked at the problem and tried to
solve that problem, which usually meant that he was managing
the person outside of some strict guideline. And medicine's a

(18:24):
lot more than guidelines, and I think we've seen the
ultimate of guidelines on how bad they became in the
recent COVID experience. Well, I'd like to think we learned
from it, but both you and I know it's a
slow learning process.

Speaker 4 (18:41):
But back to Tom. Tom. Tom was the sort of
person that is a one off. Not everyone liked Tom
because Tom was always openly honest. He would say what
he believed, which often would upset particularly people running the

(19:02):
standard line. His popularity was in fact greater outside of
austral than it was inside of Australia. You know, there
are many that believe he should have shared the Nobel
Prize because he was the guy that proved that the
Helicobacter caused peptic ulcers. Now many of your older listeners

(19:23):
or watchers would recognize that the scourge of medicine until
twenty five years ago was peptic ulcer disease. Twenty percent
of men would have a duodenal LSA. If you were
an interners I was many years ago. You knew that
when you went to sleep at night, you'd be waken
up with someone with a bleeding or perforated ulcer.

Speaker 2 (19:46):
It was.

Speaker 4 (19:46):
It dominated our working lives, and we used to think
it was always due to acid and enzymes digesting holes
in the stomach and the duodenum. And along came two
very smart guys in Perth who found these organisms, and
they found an association between the organisms and PETI losses,

(20:09):
but they couldn't prove they caused it. But the association
was strong enough and important enough for them to get
the Nobel Prize, which I totally concur with, so they should.
But it was Tom Barodi that sat down and started
mixing and matching different antibiotics, coming up with the famous

(20:29):
triple therapy that actually caused the permanent eradication in a
quantitative and qualitative way of the helicobacter. And it was
only by getting rid of the organism and showing that
the person's user didn't come back that you could prove
the cause. So that was Tom, and then he went
on to develop the modern approach to the so called

(20:55):
microbiome of the gut, which is the bacterial content of
which there is something like a trillion different bugs sitting
there and they have huge impact on both the disease
of the gut disease of the whole body. And Tom
was the one who first really put in play the

(21:17):
important role of the microbiome and its manipulation in management
of disease.

Speaker 2 (21:23):
With transferring healthy.

Speaker 4 (21:26):
Feces to unhealthy people, he used to call them pooh transplants,
which of course upset a lot of people the very term.

Speaker 2 (21:34):
But that was Tom.

Speaker 4 (21:36):
But I went to conference just three nights ago and
it was extraordinary. It was just totally on the intestinal
microbiome and pooh transplants. Because pretty much every hospital now
in Sydney. Every major hospital is doing them. It saves
the lives of people with seed to ficial disease, which

(21:57):
is very common, and changes the lives of many other people.
So that was Tom. And then he moved on to
Crohn's disease, which many of you would have heard of,
and he took what was around and went back. Rather
than saying, let's not control the inflammation, because that's not
really getting at the core. Inflammation is a response to

(22:20):
the cause, he went to the cause and started treating
the bacteria. Other people had done that, but Tom made
at work and came up with his triple therapy for crome. So,
you know, the contributions of one man to three major
issues in Guard health is just.

Speaker 2 (22:40):
Unbelievably, unbelievably important.

Speaker 3 (22:42):
Well, he wasn't what you'd call old either.

Speaker 2 (22:46):
Well you know, he was mid seventies, bought.

Speaker 3 (22:50):
In nineteen fifty. Yeah, And and he was very when
I interviewed him, he was very enthusiastic to try and
spread the word from his perspective, and I had a
great deal of a great deal of respect for it
because I did a bit of background study. I liked
what he had to say, and I followed up on it,

(23:12):
and it was and it was leading me in only
one direction. But he said, is there anything you can do?

Speaker 2 (23:20):
Well?

Speaker 3 (23:20):
He basically asked me if there was anybody I could
put him in touch with in New Zealand, you know
where he could be of assistance. And I made an
inquiry or two and I was told I don't bother.
They weren't interested, they didn't want to know. That'd be right,
and the same. Of course, he got treated the same
in Australia. Now, can you explain to us these things

(23:45):
have been discussed generally over the last four or five years,
but we've not heard from you before, and I think
we've reached a pinnacle. So I want your opinion on
such things. How did it? How did it get to
that point where somebody is qualified as Thomas Morodi, as
you and others, but you, you think of the leading too,

(24:10):
were treated as outcast.

Speaker 4 (24:13):
Yeah, no one's actually asked me that question before, so
let me try to give you an answer. First of all,
Tom and I are very different people. I always used
to see my Tom and I were good friends. And
I work and I still work. I do a clinic
in the center of digestive diseases. Although my early training

(24:34):
was in gastonurology, I've now moved away from that and
I just do clinically monology, and even there now I'm
trying to set up just a clinic for post COVID
vaccine damage.

Speaker 3 (24:46):
And that where you just mentioned was his operation, am
I right?

Speaker 2 (24:51):
Yeah, that's true.

Speaker 4 (24:51):
Tom began the Center of digestive Diseases in Sydney a
lot back in about nineteen eighty, maybe a bit earlier.
And so first Tom and I are very different. I
don't see myself as an outcast. I have a good
relationship I think with pretty much all my colleagues, certainly

(25:14):
most of them. They don't agree with me, but they
won't argue with me. And I think this is the
interesting thing, that there's a thing called cognitive dissonance, or
some people might call it brainwashing, that I never understood
how powerful this was and how interested parties can coordinate

(25:36):
such an event. I can talk to friends of mine
who are family practitioners, and until recently, none of them
would want to even talk about the fact that maybe
we made mistakes in the COVID era. In fact, I
was talking to my own family practitioner and I gave
her a copy of a book where and I mean

(25:58):
it's changing, but ever so slowly, but there is still
this resistance. So Tom, I think, was a little more
of an outcar probably than I am, for a lot
of reasons. One is that I've always One is I
haven't tried to take on the establishment outside of using

(26:21):
an argument of science and evidence. I haven't tried to
take on the person. I haven't got involved in legal cases.
There are things that Tom actually got involved in quite
that nothing that was wrong. It's just that it created
some degree of difference between him and some of his colleagues.

(26:43):
I used to call myself Tom's minder, because I'd say, Tom,
don't do this.

Speaker 2 (26:46):
Don't do that.

Speaker 4 (26:47):
You can't do this if you want to achieve an outcome.
So it's very complicated. Maybe I'm more of an outcast
than I thought. I think I am. I don't think
I am. But certainly my view is not one that's
widely shared.

Speaker 3 (27:05):
I would have thought by now there would have been
a growing number of sharers.

Speaker 4 (27:11):
I think there are, and in fact, a group called
AMPS has started. I think it's in Australia. Well, certainly
in Australia. I don't belong to it. But I have
many friends that are involved that have formed as a
result of COVID, involving many many health professionals, many many doctors.
There are a great number of medical people and health

(27:34):
professionals that share the view that we didn't get things right.
I mean, let me give you one quick example. When
COVID hit us, we had a plan. Now, this is
a plan that in Australia and New Zealand evolved over
eighty ninety one hundred years as a result of us
independently assessing the problem using the experience.

Speaker 3 (27:58):
Can I just interrupt there just for a second, don't
lose your place. But was that not virtually a worldwide plan?

Speaker 4 (28:06):
No, it was an Australian plan we had, and well
I would have had a plan which was very similar,
but we developed our own plan. I was part of
the discussions and involvement, and it was a very good plan.
In fact, it was a plan not unlike the Great

(28:28):
Barrington Decoration which came later from three leaders in UK
and the United States. But the plan suddenly disappeared and
was replaced by a narrative, and the narrative was built
around protecting an experimental genetic vaccine that for all intents
and purposes, had never been given demand, ended up being

(28:52):
given to more than half the world's population, and has
never ever been shown to be as good as all
better than a good old, ground up vaccine that we've
been dealing with for eighty ninety years for influenza, and
then to protect that experimental vaccine, and this is my

(29:13):
main point. Part of the plan was that you screen
what medications you'll have that just might be helpful against
the pathogen causing the pandemic, in this case, the COVID virus,
and you give that to as many people as you can,
even though it may only be of marginal benefit. It

(29:34):
was better than nothing. Well, all of a sudden, my profession,
and as a result of instructions from bureaucrats and politicians
and a few rather really informed so called medical people
that appeared on television on a regular basis, we were
told you can't possibly you know, it's horse medice and

(29:55):
it's terrible stuff. And what I was looking at the
data saying, this is ridiculous. This is a saving lot.
We could have saved so many lives in Australia and
New Zealand. It's as simple as that. And of course
the evidence, now, there was always evidence they worked, there
was always evidence they were safe, there was always evidence

(30:15):
they were very cheap and.

Speaker 2 (30:17):
Available, but we couldn't use it.

Speaker 4 (30:20):
They even brought in Queensland in Australia. In Queensland they
brought in a rule that if a doctor prescribed hyproxy coriquin,
a drug which every doctor has been prescribing for sixty
seventy eighty years a lack with no issue, then they
potentially could be jailed. I mean, that's how bad it got.

(30:42):
That woke me up. Now, the point I'm now going
to make is that very good evidence for all of
these things is suddenly starting to appear, evidence that was
obtained four or five years ago, but it's been held
up by including the people who did the work and
certainly the journals. They wouldn't publish anything that said they

(31:04):
were any good. But now it's over. Plastic papers are
appearing for say, hydroxy chlorum with five thousand people showing
highly effective preventative effects after the event.

Speaker 3 (31:18):
And it wasn't just hydroxychloroquine either, No, it wasn't.

Speaker 4 (31:22):
There was ivermectin followed the hydroxychloricon, which is clearly the
best drug for treating COVID still is. Isn't it interesting
that the two industry drugs which came under the table,
which have got no effect at all, It's quite clearly
demonstrated in randomized controlled trials, still used at one thousand

(31:44):
dollars a pop by most of the family practitioners, and
that went straight through the registration process. I mean that
is criminal. Criminal.

Speaker 3 (31:55):
Was there, shall we say, was there such a thing
as what we might call the tower of power that
was introduced very rapidly into the into the scene. And
by that, I'm talking about money, and I'm talking about influence,

(32:17):
and I'm talking about the ability of people to make
huge sacrifices if they pursued the course that you're discussing.
But it was it driven from the top on a
global on a global stage.

Speaker 2 (32:32):
Well you know the.

Speaker 4 (32:32):
Answer to that, and the answer is, of course it was.
I think what happened in Australia and New Zealand, as
far as I can see, is that for the very
first time we lost control of our medical decision making.
If you look back in history, New Zealand and Australia
top class medical countries. We do things very very well.

(32:55):
We have extremely good people. We make our own decisions,
we use the best information we can get. But on
this occasion we had a narrative imposed upon us, and
it came percolated down through big industry. I mean, you're
aware that Pfizer, for example, would make a million dollars
a billion dollars profit in a year from its vaccines

(33:18):
and a little less from its anti viral treatments. Money
that's unbelievably large. And what they did is they're in
my country and I'm not sure if in New Zealand,
but certainly here they've essentially bought the academic organizations. I'll

(33:39):
give you one example. Iver metnan, the drug you were
took about, was first This is an interesting story that
you may not have heard. Ivermectin was first shown to
be effective at killing the COVID organism by very good
scientists at Monash University. And she published this data very
early in nineteen nineteen twenty, and it became well known

(34:02):
a few months later she was shut down by the university.
Unfortunately university because I got a PhD from Monash University, but.

Speaker 2 (34:14):
She was shut down.

Speaker 4 (34:16):
What I didn't realize is that she'd gone ahead and
done a little study on giving iver met and the
people exposed to to COVID way back then. And surprisingly
it was just published about three or four weeks ago,
a month ago. She can now publish it, you see.

(34:39):
But weeks after she was shut down, Monash University signed
an agreement with Madina Madonna, one of the two big
companies making the vaccines for I think it was something
like three hundred million dollars, huge amount.

Speaker 3 (34:54):
And that must have been in play at the time
that she was releasing.

Speaker 4 (34:58):
It was, of course it was. Of course it was. Now,
let let me expand on that even a little further.
There was a huge play a couple of months ago
when the premiere of Victoria, who's a rather controversial figure
at the moment, she opened the new manufacturing exercise at

(35:23):
Monash to make Messenger and A with the purpose of
replacing our existing vaccines. It's hard to believe this is
actually happening. And she got up and she said something
which was rather stupid. She said, every mother is going
to be so they're going to learn the word respiratual
since city or virus disease, because right we're about to

(35:48):
bring out this fantastic vaccine that's going to save the
children and it's going to change their lives. About four
or five days after that, there was a tiny little
notice that Maderna brought out in an obscure publication somewhere
that very few people saw. They're put on hold their

(36:11):
trial in children for the RSV virus because eighteen percent
of the kids were in hospital with serious life threatening
RSV disease eighteen percent of those vaccinated with the Messenger
RNA vaccine. Now, that is not surprising, that is predictable
and that is what we're facing.

Speaker 3 (36:30):
So is it is it really on hold or do
you think it's dead?

Speaker 2 (36:35):
Oh, it's not dead. No, The only thing it's dead
is some of the kids who are going to get it.

Speaker 3 (36:39):
What was the advantage to Maderna to doing that in Victoria.

Speaker 4 (36:44):
Well, that's a good point, you'd have to ask them.
They seem to have taken over the Australian institutions because
it's not just Monash is a key one, but certainly
there are structures being built in Sydney at mcquarie University
for the production of Messenger RNA vaccines. Nearly all the

(37:05):
universities in New South Wales are tied into a system
of profit that will benefit from these activities. I suspect
the same occurs in Victoria, and a very good in
the book that we're published, which is COVID through Our Eyes,
a very good individual who's been working in press for many,

(37:31):
many years did follow the money in Australia and identified
how it is all linked up with the Messenger RNA story.

Speaker 3 (37:41):
So out of that book on page forty six, subhead
do mRNA vaccines protect against COVID nineteen infection?

Speaker 4 (37:48):
Yes they do, Yes they do, But there's a writer
to that any vaccine they don't do it any better. Well,
put it this way, no one has ever shown that
we needed to go anywhere else other than the traditional
route for making the vaccine for cod it. There is

(38:09):
not even the argument that was so much quicker is
invalid because by the time the Messenger RNA were on
the market with all the money behind them, a month
or two behind it, the Chinese and Australian vaccine producers
using traditional methodology for an antigen vaccine were also on

(38:29):
the market, and the Australian vaccine production was completely shut
down here in New Zealand and became the standard vaccine
for countries like Iran. They were smart enough to realize
that it was. And they're not seeing long COVID, you know,
the type of long COVID we see after vaccination, and

(38:52):
they're not seeing the increase in mortalities that we're seeing
with the Messenger RNA, for very good reasons.

Speaker 3 (39:00):
Does mRNA have a future?

Speaker 4 (39:02):
Well, you mean, do I think it should have a
future or do I think.

Speaker 2 (39:07):
It will have a future.

Speaker 3 (39:07):
We go both.

Speaker 2 (39:09):
Okay, I think it will have a future.

Speaker 4 (39:12):
And look, I'm not against Messenger RNA having a future
provided the problems they have, which are extensive, are sort
of out. I don't think the Messager RNA is needed
for vaccine production. I think there a bigger case can
be made for individualized tuba tumor production, although there are

(39:33):
many other alternate ways of approaching tumor immune suppression these days.

Speaker 2 (39:40):
But what's going to determine it is not you and me.

Speaker 4 (39:43):
It's going to be money and political power and at possibly,
as we look at the moment, hue great human cost.

Speaker 3 (39:53):
So I'm looking at a I'm looking at a headline
on the front of a magazine vaccines, fear and collapsing
immunity by your good self? Can you explain what that,
what that means, what it's about. So I'm looking at
a headline that says vaccin scenes ain't vaccines the consequences
of the mRNA disaster. What have you written there?

Speaker 2 (40:14):
Okay? What I wrote there?

Speaker 4 (40:15):
That particular article was written by me fairly recently for
two reasons. Well, the main reason was that I am
not an anti vaxxo. I'm very supportive of vaccines that
are valuable, and I wrote the article to point out
that we mustn't throw the baby out with the bathwater,

(40:39):
because that's what some people are starting to do. I
think the anti vaxxes are hopping on to a valid
issue with the COVID messenger RNA vaccines and extrapolating that
in two measles, mumps, you name it, when in fact,
that is not a very good thing to do. So
I wrote that largely to point out that we have

(41:05):
to be very careful about not throwing out all the
vaccines with just a messenger r and a methodology. The
second thing I put in that article was I summarized
the problems with the a very up to date summary
and the main aspect that you were referring to was

(41:27):
that if you look at vaccination against airway infections, you
are moving, you're vaccinating, injecting the vaccine into the body whole,
whereas you're trying to protect against a virus that's not
coming into the body whole. It's coming into the airways,

(41:49):
which has its own segregated so called mucosal immune system.
So the injected vaccine will never prevent you getting infected
or passing that infection onto somebody else. And that, of
course was completely misunderstood at the big beginning of the
COVID pandemic, and they were basically saying, we must be vaccinated,

(42:17):
we must have mandates so that we can stop the
passing on of covid, and any benefit it has there
is so marginal it's not worth considering. What the vaccine
does is that it prevents or contributes the prevention of
that virus escaping from the mucosal compartment into the body whole,

(42:42):
which is going to cause more severe disease and death.
And it does that fairly efficiently until the elephant in
the room, which is reactive suppression, chimes in. Of course,
if you think about it, the role of mucosal imminology
is to control a number of bacteria that are lining

(43:05):
up and contaminating the airway and the gut. It's full bacteria,
whereas inside the body, one bacteria is enough to cause
septoicemia and kill you. And so you have a different
role for the injected type of immunization, which is sterilizing immunity,
to mucosal immunity, which is about control. And to get

(43:27):
control you have to have a two way mechanism involving suppression,
so it doesn't otherwise if you have the systemic immune
system going for sterilizing immunity, when you're breathing in millions
of bacteria every minute, then you're going to blow up
like a hand grenade coming in. So you must have
a suppression mechanism. Now, this suppressor mechanism is becomes dominant

(43:53):
the more you stimulate somebody. And so what we were
doing with very unplanned booster vaccinations was pouring in stimulation
together with people being exposed to the COVID virus, and
so the tilt went to favor suppression rather than protection.

(44:14):
And so if you look at the big studies done
for example in Quebec in Canada, which is probably the best.
Instead of having eighty percent protection against going into a
hospital in older people, which we did get for a
few months in twenty twenty one, it's now down to
fifty percent and it last two months. For the rest

(44:34):
of the rest of the vaccine cycle, as new variants
come in, you get zero or little or negative suppression.
And I should have I wished I had prepared a
bit better and sent you the graph that was in
this particular paper from Quebec. It's so illustrative showing that
for eighty percent of the vaccine cycle you're getting essentially little,

(44:59):
no or negative protection. Negative protection means that you get
more infections, more hospitalizations than you would go from the
people who were in the non vaccinated control group. And
that's what I was talking about, that we're getting what
we don't want.

Speaker 3 (45:17):
I'm sure that I saw that that graph.

Speaker 2 (45:20):
And it wasn't and it wasn't.

Speaker 4 (45:22):
It's not in that it's not in that quadrant. It's
in the article which they put on on the on
the web.

Speaker 3 (45:29):
That's where I saw it. Yeah, And when I printed it,
I always go print friendly, so I knock them out
because I've only got I've got to got black print anyway.

Speaker 2 (45:40):
But you know that you know the graph I'm talking
about it?

Speaker 3 (45:42):
Yes, yes, I do.

Speaker 2 (45:44):
It's very scary, isn't it.

Speaker 3 (45:45):
There's a lot that's scary. But in answer to your
question directly, absolutely.

Speaker 2 (45:51):
You know.

Speaker 4 (45:51):
I contacted Sarah Carrara, who who's the chief or I don't.
I haven't met her, but I wrote to her and
we actually had an exchange. She didn't answer my first
two emails, and I wrote and said, come on, I'm
a professional, you're a professional. And I said, you know,
I think you work the best in the world, because
she's followed the epidemiology right through from twenty twenty one.

(46:16):
But I said, what you're showing, don't you think it's
pretty confusing? And she said, oh, no, I think the
vaccine's terrific. And I said, have you really looked at
your own data? And she stopped answering after that.

Speaker 3 (46:30):
You embarrassed her.

Speaker 2 (46:32):
I wasn't trying to embarrass her in any form.

Speaker 3 (46:34):
No, no, no, But was that the reason for the note.

Speaker 4 (46:38):
I don't think anyone else had sort of had said, hey,
wait a second, what you're showing are the problems, not
the answers.

Speaker 3 (46:45):
I can't understand how somebody can not be aware of that.

Speaker 4 (46:49):
We'll tell you that there's another guy who's involved. He's
a very different sort of person. He works for the
Cleveland Clinic and he's been doing exactly what Sarah has
been doing.

Speaker 2 (47:01):
He's an Indian chap.

Speaker 4 (47:03):
He's an infectious disease physician, and this is very interesting.
He was the first to show negative immunity and when
he showed it, very early in he found that the
people who had three or more vaccines were getting more
infections than the people who had less than three or more,
and he got dumped on by all the fact checkers

(47:25):
and I saw he answered by saying, this is the data.

Speaker 2 (47:29):
I don't understand it.

Speaker 4 (47:30):
So I wrote to him and we have an active
two way email exchange and he's a great guy, and
he thanked me for pointing out the immunology. He said,
you know, we infectious as these physicians. We do not
understand the immunology. And if you look at who's running
these programs in New Zealand and Australia, they're infectious as
these physicians who are very good at treating infections, but

(47:53):
they're not immunologists. And this guy has and The scariest
thing about my friend at the Cleveland Clinic is he's
looking not at this is thirty to fifty thousand people
who worked for the Cleveland Clinic, not a few. And
he's now looked at the latest flu pandemic, not pandemic,
but the flu season with the standard flu vaccinations. In

(48:19):
the same populations have been getting the COVID vaccines, and
for the first time ever, twenty seven percent of the
vaccinated people had more flu infections than there was a
twenty seven percent increase in flu infections in the vaccinator
group compared with the non flu vaccinator group. In other words,

(48:40):
this immune suppression looks as though can spread to affect
other outcomes.

Speaker 3 (48:46):
Right, So the immune repression is a new phrase, all right.

Speaker 4 (48:52):
The Nobel Prize was given this year, strangely for for imute.

Speaker 3 (48:59):
Okay, all right, But when when I say in the
new phrase, it hasn't been banded about too much publicly?
Has it been prior to this?

Speaker 4 (49:08):
Not at all, because no one wants to know it exists.
It doesn't sit the narrative exactly. Although I did get
a Nobel prize.

Speaker 3 (49:15):
That's exactly my point. Well, here's another good question, then,
based on all of the above, how come it won
the Nobel Prize. You would have thought that with all
the going on behind the scenes that you're discussing, and
there must have been much of it, then you'd have
to be I'll turn it into a question, would you

(49:36):
have to be pretty brave to award the Nobel Prize
for it?

Speaker 4 (49:41):
Or can I answer that by telling you about the
Nobel Prize the year before? The Nobel Prize the year
before was given to two people who had got the
prize by inserting into Messenger RNA. Many people watching though
there are four bases, and it's all about a coding
of rearranging these bases, and to make it more stable

(50:03):
and last longer, they changed one of the bases, which
is called urasilt, using pseudouridine. And without that they couldn't
have made the Messenger RNA vaccine that got the Nobel
Prize in twenty twenty four. Within weeks of them getting

(50:23):
the Nobel Prize, the Cambridge Group showed that by putting
this pseudouridine into the Messenger RNA it called slippage. In
the reading, you can imagine the Messenger rena.

Speaker 2 (50:35):
Goes into a cell and it's got to be read.

Speaker 4 (50:37):
The information's read to make a new protein, a spike protein,
which then stimulates immunity, and in doing that, it's called
a plus one slippage, which means that twenty percent twenty
percent of people who were immunized with the messenger RNA
vaccine were producing abnormal proteins in the blood. Abnormal proteins.

(51:02):
Some of these abnormal proteins have the ability to catalyze
a process called amyloid dippers. The Japanese around the same
time suddenly found a significant increase in the report of
certain aspects of dementia, which is caused, we believe by
amyloid deposition. Now I'm not saying all this, I'm simply

(51:24):
saying that there's these red flags that are appearing that
no one wants to see as red flag, saying stop,
let's work this out, because too many things are happening
that we don't understand. But the Nobel Prize was refuted
within weeks of it being awarded the following year. I
think it's wonderful that they went and awarded it to

(51:47):
the very thing that they're stimulating with their Messenger RNA vaccines.
Because remember, you do not control the dose of antigen.
When you put in a genetic message, because it goes
to every cell in the body, every wealth can become
potentially a factory. Whereas a tetanus vaccine or any of
the normal vaccines is a tiny little bit of measured

(52:08):
anigen that you stick into your arm and goes to
your regional lymph nodes. Totally different situation. And when you
don't control the anigen, you get a more pronounced tolerance
or down regulation affect you to suppression.

Speaker 3 (52:22):
Let me, let me just refer to a few things
I scribbled down and you've just targeted one of them,
and you'll understand mRNA has no targeting system.

Speaker 2 (52:34):
True.

Speaker 3 (52:35):
So does what does that mean?

Speaker 4 (52:37):
Well, what it means is that any cell messenger RNA,
if you just put ordinary messenger RNA into the body,
it gets broken up and dissipates. And so they had
to do two things to make sure it got into
cells so it could translate its message into making the
spike protein anigen.

Speaker 2 (52:56):
And so they did two things.

Speaker 4 (52:58):
They change one of the bases to pseudo uridine, which
we talked about a minute ago, and they encased it
in what's called a lipid nanoparticle, which has a very
powerful effect at helping it get into a cell, and
so potentially every cell in the body can take up
messenger RNA when it's delivered in this particular format. So

(53:19):
the messenger RNA itself doesn't have a target other than
a cell to act as a factory. And once it
does that, it puts the Any cell that makes the
spike protein is going to have that spike protein stuck
on its surface as a foreign protein. And when you
get a foreign protein, the body says, well, we'll make
an immune response to that. So is it such a

(53:41):
surprise that you get like an autoimmune response, the T
cells come along and destroy the cell that's making the
spike protein, you get myaciditis, you get brain problems, problems
potentially anywhere in the body, which is what obviously we've
been seeing for four years now.

Speaker 3 (54:01):
It's a matter of interest the talking of myocarditis. Is
there any any period of time in which that will
happen or must happen, or is it something that can
extend its availability if you understand what I mean, for well,

(54:22):
almost eternity.

Speaker 2 (54:24):
We don't know. We don't know. I mean, how long
is a piece of string.

Speaker 4 (54:28):
We know that in studying from Yale, which is a
highly reputable group in the Yale University States. They were
finding they were finding spike protein floating around in the
blood of people with chronic post vaccine problems.

Speaker 2 (54:44):
Two.

Speaker 4 (54:45):
They stopped looking at two years, and they were finding
it two years later. So we know that people have
post mortems from heart attacks and things like this years
later and they're finding spike protein and T cell responses
to that in the tissues. We don't know how long
it can stay in some people.

Speaker 3 (55:06):
What about IgG four?

Speaker 2 (55:09):
What about it? What do you want to know about it?

Speaker 3 (55:10):
Anything you can tell me?

Speaker 2 (55:14):
No, how long has peace was strength? You know, it's
interesting a lot.

Speaker 4 (55:17):
Of people who know nothing about the immunology of this
disease have suddenly found IgG four is increased, and it's
all part of the toleerzing process. Remember, let's go back
to new inhaling a virus, we call that an antigen
because it's foreign. It's no different to inhaling a pollen. Now,

(55:38):
if you inhale pollens, some people will get asthma or
hay fever, which is an exaggerated immune response. Some people
don't now the way, if you go to analogist and
ask for treatment. More often than not, he's going to say,
I'm going to give you a set of injections, and
that set of injections is the pollen adigen, And so

(56:02):
you give it, and what you're doing is stimulating the
balance we talked about a balance between protection and suppression.
And the more you inject the antigen, the more suppression
you get, and you turn off the symptoms of asthma
and hay fever. And people say that's terrific. There's no
real difference between giving people every six months or so

(56:24):
a shot of COVID messenger RNA. And remember you're not
controlling the antigen does so it's continuing to be made.
You're pouring, you're doing the same thing as the allergis
is doing. You're turning off the immune response, which means
you get more infections, and you're getting this tolerance which
seems now as though it can overflow to other biological systems.

Speaker 3 (56:47):
I scribble down.

Speaker 2 (56:49):
You understand that, I'll say it.

Speaker 3 (56:51):
No, I do, But if you want to say it again,
go for it.

Speaker 2 (56:54):
No, No, why don't you give me your intermation.

Speaker 3 (56:58):
No I didn't get it quite in that world.

Speaker 2 (57:01):
No, No, I'm not being nasty.

Speaker 4 (57:03):
I just people do not understand this very simple biological
principle has been since since one hundred years.

Speaker 3 (57:10):
Right now, that's I mean, this is why I just
gave you IAG four and then I had after that
IgG four, I scribbled, I scribbled more shots bad. Right,
The more shots you get, the more you're going to
you going to get or more likely you're going to
get crook.

Speaker 4 (57:29):
Exactly what Sarah ferraras in the Quebec studies and so
of the Cleveland clinic. They're shown exactly this in large
and large number thousands and thousands of people.

Speaker 3 (57:41):
And that's because you've destroyed your immunity.

Speaker 4 (57:45):
No, you're not destroying your immunity. You're changing the balance
of positive and negative because that's what themw cosal immune
system is all about. Very different to the sterilizing immunity
inside the body. What happens you spread the suppressor cells
throughout the body. A fantastic study has just come out.

(58:05):
I saw it yesterday, perfect time, where they've actually looked
analyzed the impact of getting coronavirus infections through life as
cornersing a cold. The COVID is simply a coronavirus that's
been manipulated one way or the other into one that's

(58:26):
more likely to invade the body. And so by having
coronavirus infections, you're priming the person. And this woman has
done a PhD in the States showing this is exactly
what's been happening. And the people who are primed with
antibody and immunity to coronavirus is because they've had them
in the past. If they get into hospital and they've

(58:49):
been vaccinated, they've got a greater chance of dying. Now,
that is very scary stuff, and it's showing exactly what
we have been talking about, and it's now been shown
in a molecular fashion.

Speaker 3 (59:03):
Well, you've fulfilled my wish in sturing the question.

Speaker 4 (59:10):
It was I didn't ask the question about IgG four though,
I just IgG four is one of four subclasses of
the IgG, the main antibody in blood, and the way
in which these T cells operate to suppress or activate
is by helping the antibody, making cells work and making

(59:31):
them make better and better antibody.

Speaker 2 (59:34):
As you get.

Speaker 4 (59:35):
More and more stimulation by vaccines or lots of covid
or allergy shots, then the T cell changes the pattern
of impact on anybody making and shifts shifts it to
an IgG four which has a counter effect on more

(59:56):
protective IgG antibodies. And so it's part of this toleerzing
process induced by the T suppressor cells.

Speaker 2 (01:00:06):
That's as simple as that.

Speaker 3 (01:00:07):
So what do ask this question? And everyone will get this.
There are still ads on messenger shots and people are
responding to them. I don't know in what numbers, but
not as big as they would have once upon a time.

Speaker 2 (01:00:22):
I know that.

Speaker 3 (01:00:23):
But the ad is usually accompanied by safe and effective.
Your take on that, well, you know what might take is,
but I want you to share it. Okay, No, I'm sorry.
I'm not meaning to be flipping. They are not They

(01:00:44):
are not safe, and at this stage they're not particularly effective.
In fact, they're counter effective. You can be worse off.

Speaker 4 (01:00:53):
I mean, I have friends tell me how they've had
five or six or seven facines and they can't understand
it why they're so sick with COVID. They ring me
up for treatment, and I say, well, of course you
had to get more COVID. So vaccination with messenger RNA
vaccines are not safe. There's a study that just came

(01:01:17):
out from South Korea which people should be aware of,
and that is they compared the benefits, the outcome benefits
from comparing a Fizer Messenger RNA vaccine with a NOVA
with the antigen vaccine from what is it Nova something,
and the kids who were getting the anigen vaccine had

(01:01:42):
more protection than the kids who were getting the Messenger
RNA simply because you don't get the same degree of
suppression with the antigen vaccine. So that's the first data
of direct comparison that exists, and it did not favor
the Messenger RNA vaccine. And yet where in New Zealand

(01:02:04):
can you get the what is it? I've got a
metal block on the name of the company that makes
the Nova. No, No, there's fires from doing to make
the Messenger And then there's a company called they bring
out an anigine vaccine which we used to be able
to get but we can't get now in Australia.

Speaker 3 (01:02:25):
No, I can't recall. I stopped, I stopped listening and reading.
Now's the time that now's the time. I'm just going
to say that I watched this morning the discussion you
had with the dark Horse podcast whatever it is, but
it's a it's a video the dark Horse. Now I

(01:02:48):
didn't have time to go back and catch the name
of the guy who runs it. Can you record it?

Speaker 2 (01:02:54):
Yeah, it's Brent, Brent Brett Brett.

Speaker 3 (01:02:59):
That's it doesn't matter.

Speaker 4 (01:03:01):
But yes, he's quite he's quite a big podcaster in
the States.

Speaker 3 (01:03:07):
So at the end of it, or towards the end,
he said, what we must do is actually take the
example of COVID, where we've gotten as close as we
are ever going to get to to seeing the dysfunction
of our system, and we should analyze what took place.
How did we allow ourselves to be marched in this direction,

(01:03:30):
to apply these remedies, to ignore other remedies that actually work.
How did that happen? If we can get to the
bottom of the story of COVID, we will know how
to cure our system. But they're going to fend off
that investigation with everything they've got.

Speaker 4 (01:03:48):
You know, that's a very very accurate statement. I'd forgotten
he said that, but I couldn't say it better myself.

Speaker 3 (01:03:55):
See, we've got these inquiries going on in both Australia
and New Zealand which are all a joke, exactly waste
of space and money. If you've got something useful to say,
you're not asked to say it. People fall into that category.
So having dealt with that the WHO, and I was

(01:04:16):
on top of this move by the WHO up until
more recently when we took a holiday and forgot everything
that was going on. Pretty much, what's your reaction to
the changes that the WHO is flogging with regard to
the next crisis, the one after that.

Speaker 4 (01:04:36):
Well, the first thing is to realize the WHO is
not what it used to be. It's always been a
political organization, but what's happened is that then it is
now essentially run by outside vested interests that are not
just governments. They're heavily funded by private industry and private individuals.

(01:05:04):
They have this worldview which seems to support their own
profit motivations. I mean, even looking at this as benign
a way as you can, you can't have one size
fit all, which is essentially what they're trying to propose.
The one size fit all is pretty concerning. But you know,

(01:05:27):
to have an organization like the WHO with a track
record which is nothing short of appalling over the COVID
era telling you in New Zealand and US in Australia
how to run our medical services and how to prepare
for the next facts the next it's laughable if it
wasn't so serious. And we're about to put in play

(01:05:51):
from January one, our own CDC and Australia. God only
knows how that's going to function. It'll be hand in hand,
I assume with the WHO and you and I aren't
going to be listened to.

Speaker 3 (01:06:04):
Well, there's no reason why I should be, but every
reason why you should. Did you ever meet Ashley Bloomfield.

Speaker 2 (01:06:13):
No, I don't know as she Bloomfield, don't know the name.

Speaker 3 (01:06:16):
He was in charge of everything here during COVID basically,
and he scored a knighthood through it. He sold all
the things that we've talked about that are wrong.

Speaker 2 (01:06:31):
We've got a few of those.

Speaker 3 (01:06:33):
Yeah, well we had your center too, don't forget.

Speaker 2 (01:06:38):
I'm sorry I shouldn't laugh.

Speaker 3 (01:06:40):
Well, it's healthy to laugh, you know. Well, finally, let's
just talk about the book for a moment or two.
You mentioned it earlier, COVID Through Our Eyes, an austraighted
story of mistakes, mistreatment and misinformation. Now at this point
I'm going to be accusative and I'm going to suggest
that one of the mistakes you made was not including

(01:07:02):
at least one chapter on New Zealand you really should have.

Speaker 2 (01:07:06):
Yeah, that's a good point.

Speaker 3 (01:07:08):
Edited by Professor Robert Clancy and doctor Melissa McCann. Now
there are nineteen chapters in Part one, Part two Personal
Encounters don't doesn't have a chapter number. And it's a
book that I believe anybody who is interested in this
particular subject should get their hands on. It's one of

(01:07:32):
the better ones. He starts off with what this book
is about, finishes with the futurists, that is he being
Robert Clancy, and in between there are numerous people in
various areas, including Gigi Faster, who we had on the
podcast way back in twenty one on Podcast one three two.

(01:07:56):
How did I remember that? And it's a book that
will answer a lot of questions I believe. Am I wrong?

Speaker 2 (01:08:05):
I don't know.

Speaker 4 (01:08:05):
For I think it puts questions, identifies what we do know,
It gives some ideas of things how we can do
things better. It's a bit hard for me to be
too critical of different aspects, but no, what we've tried
to do is tell our experience from different perspectives. No

(01:08:27):
one was told what to write they all had free
reign to write what they wanted to write. There's a
certain consistency of views, as you would note, and some
people have got different ideas and views, but by and
large it's an indictment of a process that we went through.
It's an indictment of the way in which it was

(01:08:49):
run and the outcomes. Our failure, I think, the failure
of government to honestly assess what went wrong and if
they liked what went right, is extremely disappointing because our
government and it seems I thought your government would be
more open and more objective. Well, no, I think we did.

(01:09:13):
We held our great hope for the New Zealand government.

Speaker 3 (01:09:16):
Yes, that's what I'm laughing at.

Speaker 4 (01:09:18):
Yeah, and I think you've let the team down a little.
But you know, the inquiries we had were amazing. I
knew some of the statisticians, for example, looking at excess deaths.
The excess death business is seriously concerning. The Japanese have

(01:09:38):
come out with They've done what no one else has
been able to do, and that is look at excess
deaths in the vaccinated versus the non vaccinator, and they
show that the excess deaths is essentially confined to the
vaccinated group. And there's a delay of several months, which
means that the early studies looking at what's going on

(01:10:00):
would miss the bulk of the excess deaths. And they
looked at twenty one million people. You know this was
not just a group of a up one hundred.

Speaker 3 (01:10:10):
This book takes up the story of the actual medical
response to COVID nineteen in contrast to the plan. COVID
in Australia is a narrative in fifteen stages. I just
want to refer to stage number ten Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration,
the TGA, which we share with you.

Speaker 2 (01:10:29):
No, well you've got your own. They talk to each other.

Speaker 3 (01:10:33):
Well, I think the weight of numbers might win out anyway,
fast tracked genetic vaccine approvals with scanty supporting data at
every level. These vaccines have been used in medical practice
and better fitted the definition of gene therapy than their
classification as vaccines. But it was the the TGA and

(01:10:58):
the genetic aspect of it that I wanted to I
said I was going to finish on the last on
the last point, but I want your opinion if you
care to share it. If you have one with regard
to what is going on here at the moment with
the the therapeutic and genetic aspect of life. And the

(01:11:18):
prime example I utilize is that they're doing away with
the contents of a of whatever is in a can.
You've got a can of beans. There's nothing to read
on the back to tell you how it's come about,
or detail about it or whether it's whether it's been
fiddled with along the way.

Speaker 4 (01:11:39):
Why are they doing that, you tell me, I mean,
that's extraordinary. I mean, I think we're we're moving into
an era where subtle changes in preparation, subtle constituents put
in can have a major health outcomes, and where I mean,
I'm not an expert in the area, but you know,

(01:12:01):
I recently went to a talk on some of these
plastic materials that are in our water so applies, and
no one has a clue what they do. There's no
real evidence they do anything, but they might. I think
that we're finding these things. If you don't identify what
we're eating in cans and whatevers, we're never going to

(01:12:25):
know any answers. It's a bit like not telling people
that the vaccines a messenger RNA vaccine. What's the difference?
Just say this is a vaccine for COVID.

Speaker 3 (01:12:35):
All right, So let me suggest there is a connection
between the who what eliminating, the contents and the weather
come from, etc. Inside a can of whatever it might
be or a packet may have something to do with
the World Economic Forum and their goal.

Speaker 2 (01:12:55):
I would not be all surprised.

Speaker 3 (01:12:58):
I'm not. I'm glad you said that, because I'm not
saying it is I'm saying that the opportunity there is
there to assume that it may well be.

Speaker 2 (01:13:08):
I wouldn't be at all surprised. I think it's consistent
with the general thoughts in the area exactly. Very concerning
last question, where do you go from here?

Speaker 3 (01:13:22):
You with your work?

Speaker 4 (01:13:25):
Well, I'm maybe four next week, so I'd like to
think where we go. I'd like to think that if
nothing else, I can. At a personal level, I am
particularly concerned about people who have got vaccine messenger RNA
vaccine damage. So I'm setting up a small clinic where

(01:13:47):
I see such patients. But what I'm trying to do
is set up a program that is easily transportable to
the people who will see a lot more because We're
making a huge difference in the outcomes by treating them
with ivermectin. About sixty seventy percent of these people their
life changes. In fact, last week I had an email
from a patient complaining it'd had one week of I've

(01:14:10):
met and the guy had terrible fatigue. He said, he said,
I've been reborn. He said. My wife has asked me
to go to the doctor because she thinks I've got
mania because she hasn't seen me like this for so long. Now,
that's an extraordinary outcome, But most of the patients are benefiting.
And yet no one wants to treat basins this way

(01:14:32):
because the drug's got such a bad name through what
happened at a political and company level through covid. And
yet it's the highest binding chemical to COVID spike protein
that exists, and it's very effective. So at a personal level,

(01:14:52):
that's what I'm going to do. At a more generic level,
I'm hoping that a few other people can do what
I've been doing and come from a basic science evidence
viewpoint of new coasal iminology, which very few people seem
to have that specialty interest.

Speaker 3 (01:15:11):
Well, there will be people who will be asking me,
how do I find you? How do they do you have?
Do you have any response?

Speaker 2 (01:15:21):
Look, I get emails from people every day at a
half dozen, dozen, twenty. I can't answer them. I don't
know what to say to these people because I've got it.
You won't believe this.

Speaker 4 (01:15:31):
I've got someone from Canada coming out to see me
because they cannot get with terrible post COVID vaccine damage,
just total fatigue, total brain fog, and no one will
treat them with I've emectin. So he's coming out to
see me in Sydney. I said, don't do that's crazy,

(01:15:52):
But that's how sad the situation is. I can't I'm
only seeing eight people every second week now because I said,
I've got other things to do. I'm trying to find
other doctors that will do this. I'm talking with a
couple of people at the moment, but they're dead scared.

(01:16:12):
They don't want to prescribe even though it's totally legal
iver mecten because they get banned.

Speaker 2 (01:16:20):
You know, there are people here.

Speaker 4 (01:16:21):
That haven't worked for four years because they legally prescribed
iver mecton. Good GPS probably the same in New Zealand.

Speaker 3 (01:16:29):
Well, we've got doctor shortages here, that's the insanity of it.
There are still people as far as I'm aware, who
lost their lost their jobs, not just in the medical
field but in others because they wouldn't they wouldn't be assaulted.
And it's crazy when when there is a shortage of

(01:16:51):
fireman for instance, just as an example.

Speaker 2 (01:16:54):
Yeah, well the current economy has probably sort that out
a bit.

Speaker 3 (01:16:59):
Robert, it's been great talking with you, seriously enjoyable, entertaining
and in places and informative.

Speaker 4 (01:17:06):
Well, it's been very nice from my perspective to talk
to an Australian New Zealander trans Tasman. Trans Tasman it's
the only trans we accept these days.

Speaker 3 (01:17:17):
So thank you and may we talk again sometime.

Speaker 2 (01:17:21):
It would be a great pleasure and nice talking to you.

Speaker 3 (01:17:23):
Laden Now into the mail room for podcast three hundred
and eight, missus producer. It's a very early morning, yes, Latin.
It is things to do, people to see and look

(01:17:44):
what I've got, look at that and that? How long
is that?

Speaker 5 (01:17:48):
I'll be back in ten minutes then.

Speaker 3 (01:17:50):
No, I'm not reading it yet, but I'm reading it
in its entirety because it's interesting.

Speaker 4 (01:17:54):
Good.

Speaker 3 (01:17:54):
So first up from Malcolm and a very good, little
little comment, but a very good one, Laton, isn't it
time our university is concentrated on the real things that matter,
decent teaching and appropriately focused research. So far is one
hundred and ten out of one hundred. They have gone
so woke these days. I am not proud of either

(01:18:15):
Victoria University of Wellington or VUW as he puts it,
or MASSI. I am a graduate of both and taught
at MASSI for twenty five years, but I wouldn't want
to be there now. That was from Malcolm Leyden.

Speaker 5 (01:18:30):
Vic says, with reference to podcast three oh seven and
Steven's comment regarding Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, I
totally agree with him. The two state solution is not
the answer, and I have thought so for some many
months now. The only real answer is for Israel to
re annex the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, as
was the original circumstance when the current state of Israel

(01:18:52):
was set up in nineteen forty eight. The first and
immediate Arab conflicts saw Jordan occupy the West Bank and
Egypt occupy Gaza. Would it work? Asks Vic? With twenty
one percent of Israel's current population being Arabic and very
patriotic at that, why not they have all of the
rights and freedoms one would expect in a democratic nation.

(01:19:15):
They are so patriotic that some of them volunteer to
join the IDF and some have served in Gaza. It
would take a gradual and controlled assimilation, but would remove
the current terrorist based from harmas just my humble opinion,
but it was heartening to hear it from someone with
such boots on the ground experience. Cheers, says Veck.

Speaker 4 (01:19:35):
Keep up the good work.

Speaker 3 (01:19:36):
I listen to all of your podcasts and I congratulate
you on that this is the Actually, no, I'm going
to save this because it's arguably the best one of
all from my perspective from Rochelle. John Alcock has a
Parliament petition. John Alcock was on the podcast twice last
year talking about central bank digital currencies and bitcoin and

(01:20:00):
everything and got a lot of interest. Anyway, petition reason.
I believe that centralized digital IDs could in a tracking,
profiling or data misuse, threatening privacy, freedom and resilience. In
my opinion, an independent review should assess impacts under the
Privacy Act of twenty twenty and the new Zealand Bill

(01:20:22):
of brentech nineteen ninety Until then, I believe the government
must pause any rollout or funding. And then also this
well written article which I haven't seen, but media blog
the BSA didn't go rogue when it went first. Okay,
I'll have a look Laydon.

Speaker 5 (01:20:40):
Brian has written a very lengthy missive and it's a
very good one too, so thank you Brian. I am
going to edit it for our purposes. But we have
both read this very good letter. After your podcast interview
with Ambassador Roth from Israel, I felt urged to write
to you, but now with a follow up on essentially

(01:21:00):
the same topic by Nick Cata. You were absolutely correct
in your comment to the ambassador that an understanding of
the spiritual is advantageous in understanding the midd least. I
was disappointed to hear the ambassador disagree, followed by what
I felt were his uninspiring vague comments about hoping that
the future will work out somehow, someway sometime. As western as,

(01:21:25):
we live by codes and concepts which can be totally
foreign to others. For instance, the concept of peace to
a Westerner essentially means the abstinence of strife and war
peace to a Muslim means something entirely different. And then
he goes on to say Brian says foolish, ignorant Western

(01:21:46):
politicians like Winston Peters by trying to impose a Western
concept of a two state solution, Actually asking Muslims to
deny their religion and declare their faith to be false
to make any peace agreement with Israel is a death sentence.
Think Annual Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan. Yes,

(01:22:06):
the Arafat was offered a Palestinian state but refused by
choosing the all or nothing option by starting the Dafada.
The concept of Israel and Palestinians living side by side
in peace and security as two states for two people
is trying to impose an unwanted Western fiction upon an
Eastern culture. And Brian has more, but that'll be it

(01:22:30):
for us. Thank you.

Speaker 3 (01:22:31):
Plus last line again.

Speaker 5 (01:22:33):
The concept of Israel and Palestinians living side by side
and peace and security as two states for two peoples
is trying to impose an unwanted Western fiction upon an
Eastern culture.

Speaker 3 (01:22:46):
I think it's a good line. Dear Carolyn from Stephen,
thank you for reading up my letter last week. Below
is what I sent. I hope that you didn't get
too much flak for reading it out, as I'm sure
many will disagree with me. I appreciate that it was
more an essay than a comment. However, I would like
to emphasize that to make unification of Israel and the

(01:23:09):
Palestinian territories work, the Palestinians must be afforded Maslow's hierarchy
of needs. They need a better life under an inclusive
democracy than they have under her mass Hamas is helping
this process at the moment by showing their true covers
by intimidating and subjugating those poor people and killing any dissenters.

(01:23:33):
The other important aspect is to change the name of Israel,
and I have suggested canaan As that goes back to
a time when they all live together in that one place.
Let them all be Canaanites again, to cut out any
suggestion of superiority for any one group. Peace will only
be achieved when it produces tangible benefits for all. Kindness

(01:23:56):
Regards Stephen, Stephen, I sympathize to some degree with what
you've said, but I can't agree with much of it.
To be honest, there are underlying factors that simply will not.

Speaker 5 (01:24:08):
Die Leydon Mike says. I view TBN and two C
and they are on YouTube, says Mike, So that two
new sites, are they?

Speaker 3 (01:24:21):
No, they're the sites that he was watching live in Israel,
right yes, and and Ghata okay.

Speaker 5 (01:24:30):
He says. TBN was started by a tank commander just
after the war and Gaza started. He posted a short
report every day and it has grown substantially since then.
Two C reports on many incidents is unfolding in real
time Gaza, UK, Pakistan, Iran and many more. So that's
on YouTube if anybody wants to have a look.

Speaker 3 (01:24:52):
Now. The one that I mentioned that was very long
has disappeared. Ah here it is. It's basically what my
hands and arms do when I'm not paying attention. This
is lengthy, but I want to read it all. Have
you got things to do? I do, well, hang on.
You can't just walk out, I can No, you can't.
You can't. It's from Olivia. I've been an avid listened

(01:25:14):
to your podcast for the past five years and always
thoroughly enjoy each episode of the show. It's always a
breath of fresh air to hear some common sense, and
it restores a bit of hope in me to know
that there are other sane individuals out there. So thank
you for all your work and made the show long continue.
Nick Cater is always a guest of particular interest to me,

(01:25:36):
and especially this week, as you touched on a couple
of topics that hit close to home. Almost eleven years ago,
as a bright and bushy tailed twenty three year old,
I left the shores of New Zealand for Australia and
found myself in Melbourne, where I pursued further study. I'd
spent no more than two days in the city before moving,
so there was much to explore on arrival. At this time.

(01:25:59):
I remember Melbourne as bright and vibrant, with amazing food,
culture and sport. That's the Melbourne that I remember too.
Petrol was only ninety cents a liter, oh please, and
it was still commonplace for many, if not most, cafes
and shops to have a minimum spend. To use your
f postcard, you had to carry cash. Those days are

(01:26:21):
long gone and you and Nick were on the money
in describing Melbourne as a shell of its former self.
I won't bother to go into the COVID lockdowns or
Dan Andrews. We all know the destruction that time and
man are responsible for today, or should that be that
time and that man are responsible for today. The city

(01:26:42):
is tired and run down, teeming with protesters, crime and homeless.
The roads are full of potholes which reappear almost as
soon as they're fixed. Works on the Westgate Tunnel and Freeway,
which were supposed to be completed in twenty twenty two,
are still ongoing and cause endless disruption to travel. The
Metro train tunnel is much the same, and I couldn't
tell you why, but whenever I need a train to

(01:27:04):
the city, my line is not running. When I have
the energy to raise any of this with friends, all
of whom are on the left, they tell me how
wonderful the food and hospitality industry are in Melbourne, and
excitedly remind me that we're getting free public transport all
summer long. There certainly are still great places to eat
and drink and events going on, but my friends don't

(01:27:26):
seem to realize that these don't set Melbourne apart anymore.
There are plenty of cities who boast food, wine, culture,
minus the crime and run down city. As for the
free summer transport, I'm not sure where they think the
money for this is coming from. And as doctors, lawyers, consultants,
et cetera, I doubt very much whether they need the

(01:27:46):
extra money in their account, especially because fair evading is
the norm for many Melbournians. The commentary on mental health
and what we do with the mentally unwell in Victoria
also piqued by interest as I'm a practicing neuropsychologist. Here
Nick was on the money when he pointed out that
our definition of mental health has white. In my opinion,

(01:28:09):
the public awareness campaigns for mental health over recent decades,
both in New Zealand and Australia, have done more harm
than good by pathologizing normal life experience today, particularly in
my generation and younger millennials, et cetera. You have a
bad day, week, month, and you have depression. You feel

(01:28:31):
a bit uncertain in novel social situations and you have
social anxiety, or you're constantly distracted by your phone lighting
up and you have ADHD. No harm, though, Go to
your GP, get your mental health care plan, and you
get your ten government subsidized psychology sessions per year. As
Nick pointed, out this does nothing for those with severe

(01:28:53):
mental health issues, of whom there are many, and who
are left to suffer. I could go on, but at
the end of the day, the whole mental health system
here and in New Zealand needs a complete overhaul. Sadly, though,
my faith in the future of mental health treatment management
in Australia is at an all time low. As I

(01:29:15):
write this, the Psychology Board of Australia, at the direction
of the Australian Government, are reviewing training pathways to become
a psychologist, with their proposal being to lower the standards
required to enter training programs and to cut course lengths. Well,
that'll achieve a lot. At a minimum, it currently takes

(01:29:35):
six years to study with a further two years of
on the job supervision to be an endorsed psychologist in Australia.
For many who pursue PhD study, like myself, it can
take ten plus years of training. Now they're looking at
four straight years out of school. I'm not sure about you,
but the thought of sitting in front of a twenty

(01:29:56):
two year old psychologist does not instill much confidence. I
guess I shouldn't be surprised given the age of mediocrity
in which we live, but I am deeply saddened at
what the future hold for a profession. I love not
to mention my concern for what that landscape of actual
severe mental illness will look like in five to ten

(01:30:17):
years time. And on that cheery note, I will leave
it here for today. Thank you again for a great show,
and wishing all the best yourself and missus producer kind
regards Olivia. That wasn't that interesting? It really was Thanking again, Olivia.
I hope and expect to hear from you again.

Speaker 2 (01:30:36):
Know you out.

Speaker 5 (01:30:38):
No I can furnish you with another one going to
get from Robert hang on.

Speaker 3 (01:30:43):
I'm going to do the best one at last, right,
But that's from my perspective after what I just read
that it might be a competition.

Speaker 5 (01:30:50):
Okay, Robin says, greetings and good wishes, and join your
podcast as excellent as they ever were. I have been
hunting unsuccessfully for a podcast on education that you had
with an educator, a woman whose name escapes me, and
it was excellent. Detailed failure of our system is one
of your other guests, did Owen Pool, I think, says Robin.

(01:31:12):
I am in discussion with some who disregard the OECD
ratings on how our literacy and numerousy skills have slipped.
They dismiss out of hand the measures they use to
create the ratings. Regardless, we know standards have slipped since
the late seventies and early eighties. I just want to
reacquaint myself with some data from some New Zealand educators.

(01:31:34):
Can you please send me the relevant podcasts on education,
especially the woman whose name escapes me I know, says
Robin that that is a tall order. H yeah, and
it's a tall order for you too late.

Speaker 3 (01:31:46):
And isn't it Manisha Granula?

Speaker 4 (01:31:49):
Oh?

Speaker 3 (01:31:50):
I didn't expect that. Manisha Granula. We did her last
year in I think it was May in podcast two
forty one.

Speaker 4 (01:31:58):
There you go.

Speaker 2 (01:31:59):
What can I say?

Speaker 3 (01:32:01):
Sorry now finally and you can judge which look, this
is a different sort of approach, but it's a great
letter for me anyway. Comes from Paul. I was in
our local small supermarket to day and why Malkou When
the lady ahead of me paid with cash, I said,

(01:32:21):
it's nice to see some real money for a change,
and the lady peeled off two hundred and fifty plus
dollars cash to pay for her groceries, suffice to say,
you don't get much for your money in this day
and age. Thereafter, the cashier told me, oh, half the
people pay with cash, which caught me off guard. Gives
me a lot of hope with the whole c b
DC's concept being pushed. I was quite taken aback, surprised,

(01:32:45):
and maybe she had it a wee bit wrong. The
percentages perhaps a little skewed, but it felt very encouraging
to know a lot of people out there are walking
around with cash in their pockets. Quite remarkable. It takes
me back to a time when the narrative suggested a
very small, fringe extreme group didn't support the mandates, the lockdowns,

(01:33:07):
et cetera, when at the time I suspected it was
a much larger group than what was being reported. Again,
I feel like there are a lot more of us
awake than it appears. And I'm complete and I completely
understand some hesitant response from people who are only slowly
coming to terms with how screwed up our world really is.

(01:33:27):
Thank you again so much for everything you both do. No, no,
thank you, he's replaying what he's doing. I'm still not
sure how you get Away with It, possibly the only
truth podcast in New Zealand full stop, and it is
still being run by a so called mainstream organization. How

(01:33:48):
do you get away with it? Oh? May you continue?
And as I sip my chiraz, one can only assume
that somewhere up in the organization there are a couple
of hopefully more level headed individuals. Paul, thank you. And
I have noticed that there appears to be more people
who are who making sure they've got cash in their pocket, wallet,

(01:34:12):
on their Wise card or whatever. No Wise cards not
a cash thing, is it? But we took wise cards
away to Europe for the first time. I think this
last year. No it wasn't. That was previous time, years ago.

Speaker 5 (01:34:25):
No, I've done it three times.

Speaker 3 (01:34:28):
Well, only got convinced to do it. I think last
year maybe it was last year actually, but this year
was the first year I fully utilized it. And there
we have it. See you next week you will later.
Thank you, thank you now, if you would like to correspond,

(01:35:00):
we would love to hear from you. Don't forget the address.
Latent at Newstalks at me dot co dot and said,
and Carolyn C. A O l y n at NEWSTALKZB
dot co dot NZ. As I say, on the odd occasion,
send the compliments to me please, and the complaints to her.
And there is plenty you can write on. It doesn't
have to be on whatever it is that we're talking

(01:35:22):
about week in week out. You can write on whatever
you want. Then if it's if it's good enough, it'll
get it'll get utilized, and on most of it is,
and we might even follow up on something. The other
thing to mention is that the video that I was
talking about that I watched on the morning of the

(01:35:42):
interview was dark Horse, and I reckon it's it's worthy
of investing a little time you can. You can hide
it very easily, take a look at it, and that
will take us out for podcast number three hundred and eight.
We shall return, of course, with three hundred and nine.
Until then, thank you for listening and we'll talk soon.

Speaker 1 (01:36:12):
Thank you for more from Used Talks at b Listen
live on air or online, and keep our shows with
you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio

All Episodes

Leighton Smith Podcast #308 - October 29th 2025 - Professor Robert Clancy

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

The Joe Rogan Experience

Stuff You Should Know

.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 #308 - October 29th 2025 - Professor Robert Clancy