Speaker 1: You're listening to a podcast from news talks it B.
Speaker 1: Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1: It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
Speaker 1: the information, all the debates of the now the Leyton
Speaker 1: Smith podcast Coward by news talks it B.
Speaker 2: Welcome to podcasts two hundred and seventy seven for the
Speaker 2: twenty sixth of March twenty twenty five. I'm going to
Speaker 2: reverse the order of two double seven for a moment
Speaker 2: which reflects the way that it came together. At the
Speaker 2: back end is something that you shouldn't miss. The climate
Speaker 2: scam is over. It's a headline, and I'm aiming it
Speaker 2: directly at the politicians of this country who have misled
Speaker 2: and continue to mislead on climate through every administration, and
Speaker 2: they're robbing the country and its taxpayers of billions of dollars.
Speaker 2: And they do it sometimes unwittingly because they have closed minds.
Speaker 2: But back to the introduction, A strange mental illness is
Speaker 2: spreading via infected information networks. Now, that's the heading for
Speaker 2: the Hatchet Report on March twenty. When I read it,
Speaker 2: I dropped any other considerations for two double seven and
Speaker 2: made contact with Guy Hatchett, and so he is today's guest.
Speaker 2: Media outlets have begun to admit error. These are subheadings
Speaker 2: how distorted information networks, manipulatus, COVID vaccine messaging was designed
Speaker 2: to mislead, and where to in the information age? In
Speaker 2: the modern age, information has been mistaken for knowledge at
Speaker 2: it's eight necessarily so. And there's some very good correspondents
Speaker 2: in the mail room this week, and I should say,
Speaker 2: and this is the right time to do it, that
Speaker 2: if you'd like to correspond with us latent at newstalksb
Speaker 2: dot co dot nz or Carolyn at newstalksb dot co
Speaker 2: dot nz. I've been leaving it till the end of
Speaker 2: the podcast for quite a while, Will keep saying he
Speaker 2: should do it at the front. And there we go,
Speaker 2: Laton Smith. But first, there's something I want to quote you.
Speaker 2: This comes from the bank cover of a book by
Speaker 2: Victor Davis Hanson, and I think that you are aware
Speaker 2: of my respect for Victor Davis Hanson. The book is
Speaker 2: The Dying Citizen, and Hanson shows once again why he's
Speaker 2: America's premier scholar, writer, and political observer, Drawing on his
Speaker 2: training as a classicist and clearly informed by his deep
Speaker 2: personal experience living and farming in California, San Joaquin Valley.
Speaker 2: Hanson has written a tour de force on the history, rights,
Speaker 2: and responsibilities of modern citizenship and the galaxy of forces
Speaker 2: that are undermining the concept of citizenship today. Now he
Speaker 2: concentrates the course on American citizenship and probably any Anglo
Speaker 2: speaking country in the world. And this is what he
Speaker 2: said in a column on March twenty of this year.
Speaker 2: The left knowingly pushed falsehoods on COVID, Biden's fitness, laptop,
Speaker 2: and the border dividing the nation while facing no accountability. Now,
Speaker 2: I'm going to restrict this pretty much to the first
Speaker 2: mention COVID, because that is the subject of much discussion today.
Speaker 2: For years, the left has advanced utter untruths for cheap
Speaker 2: partisan purposes that it knew at the time were all false,
Speaker 2: and now, when caught, they just shrug and say they
Speaker 2: were lying all along. Once it was known that the
Speaker 2: first COVID nineteen case originated in or near a Chinese
Speaker 2: commonist virology lab engineering gain in function deadly viruses with
Speaker 2: help from Western agencies, the left went into full persecution mode.
Speaker 2: They damned as incompetent, racist, and conspiratorial any who dared
Speaker 2: follow logic and evidence to point out that the Chinese
Speaker 2: government and its military were both culpable for the virus
Speaker 2: and lying. A million Americans died of COVID, millions more
Speaker 2: suffered long term. Still, the left wing media and the
Speaker 2: Biden administration demonized anyone who dared speak to the truth
Speaker 2: about a lab origin of the deadly virus. The lies
Speaker 2: were designed to protect the guilty who had helped fund
Speaker 2: the virus's origins, such as doctors Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins.
Speaker 2: The Biden administration also tried to use the lab theory
Speaker 2: to ridicule a supposedly pro Trump conspiracy. Western corporate interests
Speaker 2: deeply invested in China did not want their partner held
Speaker 2: responsible for veritably killing and maiming hundreds of millions worldwide.
Speaker 2: Almost as soon as Joe Biden was inaugurated, the left
Speaker 2: knew that he was physically and mentally unable to serve
Speaker 2: as president. Indeed that was the point. And then further on,
Speaker 2: he makes sir comment on Hunter Biden's laptop, refers to
Speaker 2: the debate between Biden and Trump and says a lying
Speaker 2: media damned Trump as a puppet of Vladimir Putin. Joe
Speaker 2: Biden little more than a week later won the twenty
Speaker 2: twenty election. Biden administration deliberately destroyed the southern border and
Speaker 2: welcomed twelve million illegal aliens, and that it lied that
Speaker 2: Biden had no power to stop the influx. And he
Speaker 2: concludes with this summary, all of these lies have divided
Speaker 2: the country and permanently damage the US. The perpetrators have
Speaker 2: neither apologized for their lies, nor tried to either deny
Speaker 2: nor substantiate them. No one involved has ever been held
Speaker 2: legally accountable. The legacy media permanently ruined its reputation and
Speaker 2: will likely never be seen as credible again. And the
Speaker 2: Biden administration, overseer of these many lies, will be regarded
Speaker 2: as the most duplicitous and dishonest presidency in modern history. Now,
Speaker 2: how can you disagree with that? How can you argue
Speaker 2: with that? You can't? Nah, After a short break, we'll
Speaker 2: talk with Guy. Hatchan is an antihistamine made in Switzerland
Speaker 2: to the highest quality. Leverix relieves hay fever and skin
Speaker 2: allergies or itchy skin. It's a dual action antihistamine and
Speaker 2: has a unique nasal decongestent action. It's fast acting for
Speaker 2: fast relief and it works in under an hour and
Speaker 2: lasts for over twenty four hours. Leverrix is a tiny
Speaker 2: tablet that unblocks the nose, deals with itchy eyes, and
Speaker 2: stops sneezing. Leverx is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to
Speaker 2: the highest quantity. So next time you're in need of
Speaker 2: an effective antihistamine, call into the pharmacy and ask for
Speaker 2: Leverx lv Rix, Levrix and always read the label. Takes
Speaker 2: directed and if symptoms persist, see your health professional. Farmer
Speaker 2: Broker Auckland Latam Smith. Guy Hatchard, PhD is a former
Speaker 2: senior manager at genetic Id, which is a global food
Speaker 2: testing and certification company. He's lived in New Zealand for
Speaker 2: a good number of years now. He has been on
Speaker 2: the podcast on more than one occasion in the past,
Speaker 2: and while he's subject to much criticism from weld quarters
Speaker 2: that want to criticize him because they don't like what
Speaker 2: he says, I have found after being skeptical. I said
Speaker 2: this before, after being skeptical at the beginning, when people
Speaker 2: were encouraging me to interview Guy Hatchet. I've discovered that
Speaker 2: there is a certain reliability to his commentary. So Guy,
Speaker 2: it's good to have you back on the.
Speaker 3: Great Beyond Layton. Good to talk.
Speaker 2: The cause of my making contact with you on this
Speaker 2: occasion was what you released on the twentieth of March,
Speaker 2: A strange mental illness is spreading of via infected information networks.
Speaker 2: But before we get onto that, I just want to
Speaker 2: cover off something else, because we'll not cover it off,
Speaker 2: but I want to make mention of something else. You
Speaker 2: earlier in January wrote something that was headed waking up
Speaker 2: from the dream of biotechnology. Now you've been opposed to
Speaker 2: this genetic experimentation that this country looks like it might
Speaker 2: very well head for, and your experience at genetic Id,
Speaker 2: the company, my guess is, stands you in very good
Speaker 2: stead for being a participant knowledgeably in the biotech debate.
Speaker 3: Absolutely. I mean I worked in a company that we
Speaker 3: dealt with the world's biggest food ingredient suppliers, people like
Speaker 3: ADM and Cargo, and we had to certify their food
Speaker 3: free of genetic engineering in order that they could access
Speaker 3: export markets. And as a result of my position there
Speaker 3: and my background in science. Of course, I came across
Speaker 3: and had a lifelong contact with people working in biotech
Speaker 3: research and gene therapy and so on, so at an
Speaker 3: inside view of the impact of genetic engineering on economic
Speaker 3: systems and on food systems, and that dovetails very well
Speaker 3: with what we're facing today, which is the government planning
Speaker 3: to deregulate biotechnology, which to my mind is extraordinary after
Speaker 3: what we've just been through for five years of the pandemic.
Speaker 2: We'll get onto that, but let's go back and begin
Speaker 2: with the cause of the conversation. One of the first
Speaker 2: to suggest that COVID was created in a lemb biologists,
Speaker 2: Elena Chan, faced death threats and was branded a race traitor.
Speaker 2: Now she tells Ian Burrell there was a real conspiracy
Speaker 2: among very powerful scientists. The cover up was morally repugnant.
Speaker 2: End quote. The story is unfolded at length and well
Speaker 2: worth the time spent reading it. This article that we're
Speaker 2: quoting from discusses how this could have could have happened
Speaker 2: and why similar tropes are continuing to influence public opinion
Speaker 2: to this day. Just back up for me and fill
Speaker 2: us in a bit more on Alena Chan. If you would.
Speaker 3: Alena Chan is a scientist working in biotech, and of
Speaker 3: course biotech is a huge enterprise in employing millions of
Speaker 3: people these days around the world. And she looked very
Speaker 3: early on at the structure of the COVID virus and realized,
Speaker 3: as many people did around the world, that this obviously
Speaker 3: came from a and she thought, this question has to
Speaker 3: be asked now. That's all she did. She asked the
Speaker 3: question is she said, when we're looking at the origin
Speaker 3: of COVID, we need to also consider the possibility that
Speaker 3: it came from a lab, and that was sufficient to
Speaker 3: cancel her. It ultimately led to the loss of her
Speaker 3: job because she was treading on very powerful toll toes.
Speaker 3: People who had been involved in the experimentation at Wuhan
Speaker 3: Virology Lab wanted to ensure that no such questions were asked,
Speaker 3: so they said about shutting her up and shutting many
Speaker 3: people up. I talked to people in gene therapy very
Speaker 3: early on, and they said, categorically, this came from a lab,
Speaker 3: but please don't mention my name because I'll lose my job.
Speaker 3: This was an area that was absolutely suppressed and it
Speaker 3: was a conspiracy. It was a genuine conspiracy. And we
Speaker 3: know it's a conspiracy because now, as a result of
Speaker 3: hearings in the Senate in the US, the actual texts
Speaker 3: of emails that the people involved in trying to shut
Speaker 3: up these questions have come out, and they themselves knew
Speaker 3: and believed it came from a lab. And yet they
Speaker 3: said about shutting it up because they were protecting their turf.
Speaker 3: They were protecting themselves from blame. They were protecting biotechnology
Speaker 3: in general from criticism.
Speaker 2: At what level were these people with whom you spoke.
Speaker 3: Well, they were people who were involved in gene therapy
Speaker 3: at some of the most prestigious institutions in the world,
Speaker 3: leading institution. These were leading scientists, and they were being
Speaker 3: shut up. These were not people on them on the edges.
Speaker 3: I mean, for example, Richard Richard H. E. Bright, who
Speaker 3: is a world renowned microbiologist and an expert on biotechnology safety.
Speaker 3: I mean, he was speaking up from the beginning and
Speaker 3: asking questions. He was warning journalists, but again his voice
Speaker 3: was drowned out. And how and the story of how
Speaker 3: how they succeeded in drowning out this conversation is the
Speaker 3: very interesting topic of the article. We're going to be discussing.
Speaker 2: What about the level of people who were who were well,
Speaker 2: who were telling the lies.
Speaker 3: How high you couldn't go much bigger than that.
Speaker 2: That's true, but earlier, but earlier on, before it became
Speaker 2: obvious that he was he was part of it, and
Speaker 2: he was he was fibbing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there were right, there were people who are fronting it.
Speaker 3: There were scientists who were fronting it, who were publishing
Speaker 3: papers in Nature, in the Lancet, and they were concocted.
Speaker 3: They were deliberately concocted. And again their emails show this.
Speaker 3: These papers were deliberately concocted to suggest that it was
Speaker 3: only a snotic origin, the origin from animals that could
Speaker 3: be considered. And they've since been picked apart mathematically and genetically,
Speaker 3: and that's published now and in the public record, and
Speaker 3: they were deliberately misleading and those paper. Interestingly, those papers
Speaker 3: have not been withdrawn. They're still in you know, you
Speaker 3: can still access them on the web, even though they're
Speaker 3: completely discredited. Because the people clubbed together to protect by
Speaker 3: technology presented themselves as trusted sources. And this is how
Speaker 3: they worked. They had names, people like Faucci and so
Speaker 3: on had names, and they were recognized as trusted sources,
Speaker 3: and they used that to leverage public opinion using well
Speaker 3: known principles of network science.
Speaker 2: Do you know if any of those people who have
Speaker 2: paid the price that they should pay.
Speaker 3: You know, obviously they haven't. I mean, Faucchi as to
Speaker 3: a certain extent, has been discredited. Peter Daizac, who was
Speaker 3: the one basically organizing the research in Wuhan, He's British.
Speaker 3: He is now banned from receiving any more grants from NIH.
Speaker 3: These are very mild kind of punishments. They are kind
Speaker 3: of you know, slat with a wet flannel over your
Speaker 3: smallest finger, and you know, we're dealing here with a
Speaker 3: pandem that in which millions of people have died. And
Speaker 3: yet the punishments so to speaker, oh, well that was
Speaker 3: you know, will be sort of a little bit careful
Speaker 3: about this person in future.
Speaker 2: All right, So that's that person, But there are lots
Speaker 2: of other persons who will not be affected by it
Speaker 2: and undoubtedly will continue on the same or a similar path.
Speaker 3: Well, there is a huge industry biotechnology. It's an absolutely
Speaker 3: huge industry, and you know it's one built on imagination
Speaker 3: and dreams that we've seventy years now, more than seventy
Speaker 3: years since the structure, the hellicore structure of DNA was discovered,
Speaker 3: and we've been promised miracle cures but they haven't materialized.
Speaker 3: But still we're being asked for more grant money, more funding,
Speaker 3: less regulation, let us do whatever we want to do.
Speaker 3: But it's not paradigm that's producing results. It looks far
Speaker 3: more like a lottery. You know, In a lottery, millions
Speaker 3: of people every week are doomed to disappointment, but there's
Speaker 3: one group who profit every week. That's the organizers of
Speaker 3: the lottery. And what we're seeing is that biotech is
Speaker 3: promising every week, but I don't really see any useful
Speaker 3: results coming out. As far as public health or agriculture
Speaker 3: are concerned. It's time we drop these people.
Speaker 2: Okay. Now, media outlets have begun to admit error. I
Speaker 2: know that The New York Times, for instance, has well
Speaker 2: not fessed up, but alluded to the fact that, in
Speaker 2: other words, they've spread the responsibility, alluded to the fact
Speaker 2: that they were misled, where in fact they weren't just misled,
Speaker 2: they were part of it.
Speaker 3: Absolutely. Yeah. They published an article just a couple of
Speaker 3: days ago we were badly misled about the event that
Speaker 3: changed our lives. And it reported that seventy seven Nobel
Speaker 3: it's in thirty one Science.
Speaker 2: Sorry, seventy seven Nobel laureates.
Speaker 3: Seventy seven Nobel laureates and thirty one scientific societies were
Speaker 3: involved in the cover up, and that included deliberately planning
Speaker 3: to mislead journalists about the origin of COVID. And that's
Speaker 3: you know, that's the New York Times, and the New
Speaker 3: York Times is a paper that has consistently been very
Speaker 3: pro government policy. So this is a big turnaround for them.
Speaker 3: And nevertheless, they were well informed right from the beginning.
Speaker 3: That was a big problem. They were told that the
Speaker 3: research at wu HAN was like look looking for a
Speaker 3: gas leak with a lighted match, and they and they
Speaker 3: ignored it, and that all this is is very well documented,
Speaker 3: but extraordinarily it hasn't really reached New Zealand why, I
Speaker 3: don't know. Our papers just seem to be just not
Speaker 3: prepared to admit that they made mistakes in the coverage
Speaker 3: of COVID.
Speaker 2: And of their much of their information, much of their
Speaker 2: journalism comes from American media, especially The New York Times,
Speaker 2: Washington Post and some other places, and they rolled with
Speaker 2: them and having found that they were misled themselves, if
Speaker 2: you'd like to be generous, they don't want to make
Speaker 2: reference to it because it just draws attention.
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely, it undermines their standing. Of course, they are
Speaker 3: standing has been undermined because a lot of what they
Speaker 3: predicted at the outset of the pandemic is so obviously
Speaker 3: not true. But it's kind of frightening that we're still
Speaker 3: in the dark here whereas overseas. I mean, for example,
Speaker 3: just yesterday there was an article in which Boris Johnson
Speaker 3: was writing a former British Prime minister, and he was
Speaker 3: saying that he now accepts the lab leak origin of COVID,
Speaker 3: and his conclusion is we need to go after the
Speaker 3: Chinese government and hold them to account. Well, of course
Speaker 3: the research occurred in China, but it was funded by
Speaker 3: the US. And he's he himself, this is one of
Speaker 3: the revelations that has come out. Was informed when he
Speaker 3: was Prime Minister by the head of mi I six,
Speaker 3: Richard Dierlove, that COVID came from a lab with one
Speaker 3: hundred percent certainty. This was the conclusion of the British
Speaker 3: Secret Service in twenty twenty, and Boris Johnson himself buried
Speaker 3: the report. He now wants to deflect intelligence, you know,
Speaker 3: attention by saying, oh, we should go after China. Well,
Speaker 3: China wasn't at fought here. It was a biotech community
Speaker 3: which is working really outside any sort of safety factors
Speaker 3: which are reasonable, and who have you know, started this
Speaker 3: whole program of gain of function research, making viruses more
Speaker 3: deadly and seeing what happened and seeing if they could
Speaker 3: stop them. That was beyond any reasonable assessment of acceptable risk.
Speaker 3: And that they're the area. That's the area that has
Speaker 3: to be held account not China, not not even America
Speaker 3: per se. It was a community that had started to
Speaker 3: do things and it hasn't stopped. That was the other
Speaker 3: thing that the New York Times article warned against. The
Speaker 3: Research of that character is still going on at Wuhan
Speaker 3: Virology Institute, still using a low lab safety protocol. That
Speaker 3: has to be stopped. It's risky and how do how
Speaker 3: does it get stopped?
Speaker 4: There has to be an open conversation that starts where goodness,
Speaker 4: how does one to stop it?
Speaker 3: There has to be global legislation outlawing biotechnology experimentation. There
Speaker 3: has to be some kind of international agreement, and there
Speaker 3: has to be a knowledge revolution when it comes to biotechnology,
Speaker 3: because biotechnology has has these misleading public ideas that are
Speaker 3: promoted to make it all sound very safe and interesting
Speaker 3: and wonderful and miraculous. We have humans have about twenty
Speaker 3: thousand genes, but these genes have trillions of functions, trillions
Speaker 3: of functions. And the idea that one gene is responsible
Speaker 3: for one thing, and if you change that gene, then
Speaker 3: you're going to improve that one thing. It's just simply
Speaker 3: completely and utterly pause. It's a myth. If you change
Speaker 3: one gene, you're going to change thousands of other functions.
Speaker 2: So, in other words, one gene in your system gets
Speaker 2: affected and engined dead in the water. Well. Is that
Speaker 2: an exaggeration.
Speaker 3: It's a question of the paradigm. Is that you got
Speaker 3: a lot of leeway to it. This is the biotech paradigm.
Speaker 3: You've got a lot of leeway to experiment when it
Speaker 3: comes to genetic systems, and this arises out of a
Speaker 3: misunderstanding of Darwinian ideas about evolution, and actually genetic systems
Speaker 3: have evolved over millions of years and it's an extended,
Speaker 3: integrated ecosystem, which is very, very specific. That has evolved
Speaker 3: is this interdependency, and this system is delicate. The mistake
Speaker 3: is thinking that genes or genetic ethics that are created
Speaker 3: in a laboratory will somehow not upset the fundamentals of
Speaker 3: this system. And what the pandemic teaches us is now,
Speaker 3: especially we know the origin of COVID, that genetic engineering
Speaker 3: does upset the fundamentals of the system. And that's a
Speaker 3: crucial understanding that has to get through that. What has
Speaker 3: happened is we've created a monster. We've trained millions of
Speaker 3: people in biotechnology, and ideas are taught in school that
Speaker 3: somehow it's wonderful and safe and it's going to make
Speaker 3: us live longer, grow taller, become more intelligent, and be
Speaker 3: healthy and happy. And that's simply a myth and there's
Speaker 3: no evidence to support that that's going to happen.
Speaker 2: So you've written extraordinarily some of the scientists involved in
Speaker 2: the cover up still making key decisions that affect us all.
Speaker 2: First question, first question of that, are they New Zealand
Speaker 2: scientists to fall into that category?
Speaker 3: Absolutely. The whole the whole push by industry to deregulate
Speaker 3: biotechnology is this is where the technology built currently before
Speaker 3: Parliament has come from. Is that the scientists are saying,
Speaker 3: we want the freedom to experiment. And this has been
Speaker 3: the whole history of biotechnology around the world, that the
Speaker 3: push not to be regulated. Biotechnologists do not want to
Speaker 3: be regulated. They want to be free to experiment, and
Speaker 3: we shouldn't let them be free to experiment because of
Speaker 3: the experience of the last five years, things can go
Speaker 3: terribly wrong and there will be and there are rogue
Speaker 3: people in the biotechnology system who are doing secretly doing things.
Speaker 3: This again is the lesson of the pandemic. People are
Speaker 3: secretly trying out some wild ideas.
Speaker 2: So Jeremy Farah, now this is stunning. The sims Jeremy
Speaker 2: Farah now Chief Scientists at the World Health Organization instructed
Speaker 2: the authors of a paper that was subsequently published by
Speaker 2: Nature they should specifically rule out a lab origin. So
Speaker 2: Jeremy Farah.
Speaker 3: Now chief Scientists at All.
Speaker 2: I'm just stunned by it. Then Lord Valence, now the
Speaker 2: UK government's Science Minister, quashed the conclusion of MI sixter
Speaker 2: Chief Sir Richard Dilov that a Lablik origin was one
Speaker 2: hundred percent certain. So you have people in Britain who
Speaker 2: are at the top of the political game, who have
Speaker 2: interfered with things that they know nothing about and lied
Speaker 2: and cheated, and they're still in those positions or similar ones.
Speaker 2: Why how does that happen.
Speaker 3: People made a lot of money during the pandemic, and
Speaker 3: people today love people who made lots of money. And
Speaker 3: the people who made lots of money during the pandemic
Speaker 3: were quite varied. The course of the pharmaceutical companies made
Speaker 3: a lot of money, and then there were people providing
Speaker 3: services government pandemic services and masks and policies and consultants
Speaker 3: and so on. And this is an industry that absolutely
Speaker 3: thrives on money. And governments are kind of you know
Speaker 3: they have today they have sort of enormous respect for
Speaker 3: people who made money, however they made it, and so
Speaker 3: in Britain and in the US and in many other countries,
Speaker 3: there is a view that biotechnology is a panacea and
Speaker 3: it's a you know, it's something that's going to go
Speaker 3: on giving financially. But just remember that all of these
Speaker 3: people made money during the pandemic because gave them contracts
Speaker 3: that we paid for it. We impoverished New Zealand the
Speaker 3: UK was impoverished as a result of the transfer of
Speaker 3: funds into the biotechnology industry, into a transfer of funds
Speaker 3: into the very people who we now know caused the
Speaker 3: problem in the first place. That's brightening and the fact
Speaker 3: that that hasn't been recognized, and the fact that people
Speaker 3: are still clinging to faith in this paradigm, this biotech paradigm,
Speaker 3: is absolutely frightening.
Speaker 2: And what are called Doctor Leanna Winn, who admits some
Speaker 2: COVID conspiracy theories were actually true. From early on in
Speaker 2: the pandemic, Win took a hash stance on vaccine descent
Speaker 2: during her regular appearances on c as a medical analyst,
Speaker 2: her opinion pieces for The Washington Post, and her time
Speaker 2: as a guest contributor for NPR, National Public Radio, PBS, BBC,
Speaker 2: and probably the worst offender of them all on a
Speaker 2: consistent basis MSNBC where they're all insane, where she called
Speaker 2: for severe restrictions on the unvaccinated, She now admits that
Speaker 2: COVID vaccine will repeat it. She now admits that COVID vaccines,
Speaker 2: among other things, caused menstrual difficulties and says COVID dissenters
Speaker 2: should have been able to ask questions and that she
Speaker 2: would have answered them a faux apology with a hollow ring.
Speaker 2: No doubt she misses those heady days when she shone
Speaker 2: in the international media limelight. If I may, for as
Speaker 2: long as I can recall now, I've been damning CNN,
Speaker 2: MSNBC and some of the other the New York Times
Speaker 2: because of their misleading. And I use the word journalism loosely,
Speaker 2: and people say, oh, no, no, no, they wouldn't do that,
Speaker 2: They wouldn't do that. But the history shows, history shows,
Speaker 2: starting with the New York Times and going back to
Speaker 2: the First World War and on from there, capable of
Speaker 2: great dishonesty.
Speaker 3: You say, absolutely, we have to be very careful. That's
Speaker 3: another lesson that these these were people trusted sources of information,
Speaker 3: and it's that misled people. And apparently they want now
Speaker 3: to say, oh, I'm sorry, I was wrong, Please let
Speaker 3: me be a trusted source again. We shouldn't let them
Speaker 3: be a trusted source again. We should now learn the
Speaker 3: lesson that we need to have broader information sources, and
Speaker 3: that is a function of modern living, is that the
Speaker 3: number of information sources in the world has reduced the
Speaker 3: means of spreading them has increased, so in a sense,
Speaker 3: we became victim of our own, our own reliance on
Speaker 3: a small number of sources, and that influenced public opinion.
Speaker 3: And it was deliberate, It was deliberately manipulated. If you
Speaker 3: have a situation where there are hundreds millions of people
Speaker 3: relying on a small number of sources, and those sources
Speaker 3: are not very careful about how they get their information,
Speaker 3: then a small number of scientists, a very very small
Speaker 3: nomber of scientists, can actually influence those trusted sources, and
Speaker 3: the trusted sources then influence public opinion, and then everybody
Speaker 3: starts talking to one another and they're all saying, oh, well,
Speaker 3: I read it there, I read it there. It only
Speaker 3: comes from one source, but it's reinforcing itself. This is
Speaker 3: how networks, closed networks work. When you have a closed
Speaker 3: controlled network, you can influence public opinion. And people these
Speaker 3: days who want to influence public opinion realize how this works,
Speaker 3: and they manipulated. And it happened here in New Zealand.
Speaker 3: Big time. People just simply didn't you know. Two contrary
Speaker 3: opinions were not just absent, they were severely canceled restricted,
Speaker 3: so that we didn't get an open public debate. We
Speaker 3: still haven't had an open public.
Speaker 2: And as we know, this is one of a number
Speaker 2: of issues, but probably the biggest that has divided friendships, families, businesses,
Speaker 2: all sorts of all sorts of damage has been wrought
Speaker 2: on society. And I think it's still the same. It
Speaker 2: might have lessened, it might have backed off a little bit,
Speaker 2: but it still exists.
Speaker 3: We have to This is the great news today. Really,
Speaker 3: the freeing news is that the whole debate was framed us.
Speaker 3: Is this disaster due to covid or is it due
Speaker 3: to COVID vaccines? Well, it doesn't matter. They both came
Speaker 3: from a biotech lab. It's time we started asking questions
Speaker 3: about biotech labs. That's that's the lesson for New Zealand.
Speaker 3: It doesn't matter whether which one you think, whether it's
Speaker 3: COVID or COVID vaccines, they both came out of the lab.
Speaker 3: They both invade cells, they both ort to genetic functions,
Speaker 3: they were both man made through biotechnology experimentation. It's about
Speaker 3: time we ask some very serious questions about biotech safety.
Speaker 3: And we don't have to rely on people on scientists
Speaker 3: who have vested interests in getting grants and government support
Speaker 3: to do whatever they want to do, because their advice
Speaker 3: is clearly biased. And now we see that the minute
Speaker 3: this pandemic took place, senior scientists move to protect their
Speaker 3: interest by distorting the public dialogue. It's criminal.
Speaker 2: There's one thing I want to ask you. Donald Trump
Speaker 2: has withdrawn from the World Health Organization, and that's being
Speaker 2: met with varied reaction. But there are plenty of people
Speaker 2: who plenty of people who believes that he's done the
Speaker 2: right thing. My question is, because I think other countries
Speaker 2: will do it also, should we join them?
Speaker 3: Absolutely? World Health Organization is in the global unaccountable space.
Speaker 3: It's not accountable to anyone, it's not accountable to any electorate.
Speaker 3: I mean, this is the If you look at the pandemic,
Speaker 3: you see multinational companies. You see organizations like World Health
Speaker 3: Organization and IGMA, for example, the International Coalition of Medicine's
Speaker 3: regulatory authorities, which operate in the global space pre of
Speaker 3: any regulation and are in the case of WHO and
Speaker 3: IGMA are largely funded by the pharmaceutical industry and they
Speaker 3: serve the purposes of the pharmaceutical industry. And I think
Speaker 3: in this case, you know, whatever you think of Donald
Speaker 3: Trump and all the things that he has done and
Speaker 3: hasn't done, leaving the World Health Organization as far as
Speaker 3: a funder goes with a sensible kind of response to
Speaker 3: what went on during the pandemic, we weren't well served
Speaker 3: by them. And to suggest, as our government appears ready
Speaker 3: to do, that we should give up our sovereignty in
Speaker 3: the event of the inevitable event of another pandemic and
Speaker 3: hand it over to who is a frightening prospect. They
Speaker 3: did not ask questions of the pharmaceutical industry during the
Speaker 3: pandemic that they should have asked.
Speaker 2: Why is that?
Speaker 3: Yes, that's the big question is why is that? I
Speaker 3: think we have a very weak media here in New
Speaker 3: Zealand who haven't asked critical questions of the government, and
Speaker 3: we have a government who borrows opinions very easily from
Speaker 3: infected sources. So, for example, medsafe is clued in to BIGMA,
Speaker 3: the International Coalition of medicine's regulatory authorities. It's clued in
Speaker 3: be A databases. We are medicine's regular to Medsafe relies
Speaker 3: upon shared databases that are created overseas but ready made
Speaker 3: opinions about regulations, drugs, health policy, and so on. We
Speaker 3: simply arrive in their inbox ready written, and they then
Speaker 3: pass it on to our government officials and give it
Speaker 3: the med safe stamp of approval without real forethought. And
Speaker 3: that again is how information systems become infected. And what
Speaker 3: we have to remember as people is that it's not information.
Speaker 3: There's no there's huge amounts of information out there. Is
Speaker 3: we always have to remember that what is important is knowledge,
Speaker 3: and knowledge is through our five senses, our intellect, our mind,
Speaker 3: our self reflective consciousness. These are things that we have
Speaker 3: to treasure. And because of the bombardment of information that
Speaker 3: now goes on, we have come to rely through our
Speaker 3: devices on ready made opinions. And the government is as
Speaker 3: much a victim as this as the man in the street.
Speaker 3: And that's what we're seeing here in New Zealand is
Speaker 3: the government regurgitating opinions about biotechnology safety after we've just
Speaker 3: had a pandemic in which millions of people died worldwide
Speaker 3: as a result of biotechnology experimentation, and yet they haven't
Speaker 3: woken up to that. They're sleepwalking to disaster.
Speaker 2: I had Brody Hyde on the podcast couple of weeks back,
Speaker 2: and when he was in Parliament he was the only
Speaker 2: member to have any science background, any science degree or practicality.
Speaker 2: Whether that's still the same, Whether there's been anybody since then,
Speaker 2: I'm not I'm not sure. I know there've been doctors,
Speaker 2: but not scientists. As such. The fact that he knew
Speaker 2: more about some things than anybody else did did not
Speaker 2: stand him in good stead. I don't think in some
Speaker 2: of the decisions that were that were made.
Speaker 3: I think, you know, he would have been resented in
Speaker 3: a in a parliament which has come to be dominated
Speaker 3: by ideology rather than knowledge. That is the hallmark of
Speaker 3: the modern parliament, Okay, which, after all, it starts from
Speaker 3: a fraudulent basis. People can go out on the campaign
Speaker 3: trail promise anything they like, even if they intend to
Speaker 3: do something entirely different. They just promise in order to
Speaker 3: get votes. And you know, when you when you live
Speaker 3: your life like that, you affect who you are and
Speaker 3: what you become. Truth is extremely important. If you live
Speaker 3: a lie, that lie takes over your life. And politicians
Speaker 3: are living a lie. They're getting out there promising things
Speaker 3: they know that they can't deliver, and they're distorting the
Speaker 3: way that their mind works and the resulting behavior and you.
Speaker 3: We've ended up now in the modern era with a
Speaker 3: Parliament which which seems to be completely unaccountable. It seems
Speaker 3: to have developed its own idea that their role as
Speaker 3: our representatives is simply to tell us what to do,
Speaker 3: and to tell us what to do without a good basis,
Speaker 3: without a good logical basis. And if someone is elected
Speaker 3: to Parliament who asks questions, they're ostracized in the same
Speaker 3: way that scientists asking questions about the origins of COVID
Speaker 3: were ostracized because it doesn't fit the paradigm we're now
Speaker 3: As has happened in the last week, we're now in
Speaker 3: a situation where David Seymour and Simeon Brown are saying
Speaker 3: that no health practitioner employed by the government can speak
Speaker 3: freely about medical matters. They have to first check with
Speaker 3: the hierarchy before they're allowed to say anything. Well, a
Speaker 3: closed society in which opinions are suppressed and speech is
Speaker 3: suppressed is the hallmark of a dictatorship, is the hallmark
Speaker 3: of a repressive regime. And that's the direction we're going in.
Speaker 3: And as Seymour said, I'm putting the muppets back in
Speaker 3: their box now. He was talking about medical professionals. He
Speaker 3: was referring to them as muppets, and he said, I'm
Speaker 3: putting them back in this and that is a all
Speaker 3: of arrogance.
Speaker 2: That's unacceptable.
Speaker 3: It's unacceptable. But somehow, rather the media has become tolerant
Speaker 3: of it. They're not asking questions that should be asked.
Speaker 2: You don't suppose do you by any chance that the
Speaker 2: current future as it as it looks for the New
Speaker 2: Zealand Herald might improve on it?
Speaker 3: Well? It could, isn't it. We have a we have
Speaker 3: a you know, someone who's bought Jim Grennan who's reportedly
Speaker 3: bought a nine per cent interest in and said me
Speaker 3: and he wants to be on the board and have
Speaker 3: an influence.
Speaker 2: But he's he's got now at least fifty of the vote.
Speaker 3: Oh well then we may, we may see a change.
Speaker 2: No, it's all, it's all go. And I'm and I'm
Speaker 2: I'm sort of sorry to take the approach that I
Speaker 2: am having had connection with them and still do to
Speaker 2: some degree. But his his major goal, I mean, he's
Speaker 2: not in there just for charity, but his major goal
Speaker 2: is to improve the journalism. Now, whatever that might mean,
Speaker 2: I can only imagine that that will make the paper
Speaker 2: more interesting.
Speaker 3: Yes, because at the moment it's readership is falling precisely
Speaker 3: because it's not very interesting and we're seeing a proliferation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, when you touched on it a moment ago, when
Speaker 2: you were when you were talking about the restriction of views.
Speaker 2: That leads to a captured audience. So under the subheating
Speaker 2: of what will happen to us, a quick look across
Speaker 2: the ditch to Australia reveals they've already they already have
Speaker 2: a gene technology regulated doctor Raj Muller. I've got a
Speaker 2: question about that too. He has announced that a period
Speaker 2: of thirty days public submissions will be held starting in
Speaker 2: March before the probable that's now just probable approval of
Speaker 2: the release of genetically engineered mosquitoes in Queensland. Like, what
Speaker 2: could go wrong? It doesn't stop there. The idea of
Speaker 2: experimenting on Australians is catching on fast incredibly. Buller's office
Speaker 2: has just rated the following project at the Doherty Institute,
Speaker 2: University of Melbourne as posing negligible to moderate risk to
Speaker 2: human health and safety. The initial aim is to evaluate
Speaker 2: the safety and infectivity of recombinant seasonal human influenza viruses
Speaker 2: in healthy volunteers. These GM viruses will then be used
Speaker 2: to assess the effectiveness of therapeutic drugs or vaccine candidates
Speaker 2: to prevent and control influenza infection. And that's the end
Speaker 2: of the quote. But then the lab is proposing to
Speaker 2: make gene altered versions of the flu and then test
Speaker 2: out various genetic drugs and all vaccines on human volunteers
Speaker 2: over five year period. Given the low risk rating by
Speaker 2: the regulator, the project which creates new viruses is likely
Speaker 2: to be a shoe in for a rubber stamp. Does
Speaker 2: any of this sound at all familiar? What's the answer?
Speaker 3: Well, look, the thing is that we've been talking about
Speaker 3: a lab leak, you know, as if it's an accident.
Speaker 3: It was a mistake, But now you know and this
Speaker 3: is how biotechnology works. Now, having had one go at
Speaker 3: this by acces, apparently by accident, now it's promulgated as
Speaker 3: a deliberate policy to invent new viruses and then test
Speaker 3: them out on humans. How can this be contained? It's
Speaker 3: a mystery to me how the kind of experimental interface
Speaker 3: front line of biotechnology keeps expanding with these exotic, risky
Speaker 3: project projects. And they have a gene regulator in Australia.
Speaker 3: We are soon going to have a gene regulator who's
Speaker 3: just going to be a facilitator. They're going to be
Speaker 3: an industry facilitator. And our government is cutting out any
Speaker 3: consideration of precautionary science. It's cutting out any question of
Speaker 3: labeling genetically modified product projects. It's this is very crucial
Speaker 3: to understand about the Gene Technology Bill. It quite apart
Speaker 3: from there being a regulator for some projects, it is
Speaker 3: setting up a system where certain types of genetic engineering,
Speaker 3: which in the actual fact is most genetic engineering, is
Speaker 3: simply going to be completely unregulated. So crisper gene techniques
Speaker 3: have been designated as inherently safe and therefore projects using
Speaker 3: crisper are simply not going to be regulated. They're just
Speaker 3: going to be allowed to go ahead unidentified. It's an
Speaker 3: extraordinary step that our government is proposing, clearly pushed on
Speaker 3: by foreign interests, and we are going to be on
Speaker 3: the receiving end of this kind of experimentation. Where do
Speaker 3: we go from here, Well, the only thing is to
Speaker 3: you know, we want out.
Speaker 2: The election you know half a term ago was a
Speaker 2: great relief to a large portion of the country, the
Speaker 2: majority by far. And as a result of that, has
Speaker 2: the audience, as in the public become like a daisical
Speaker 2: are they pay we if you like, paying enough attention
Speaker 2: to what's going on and passing on our feelings to
Speaker 2: the powers that be who should be become aware of it,
Speaker 2: because it seems to me that there is a lot
Speaker 2: that is happening that rightly informs people would probably object
Speaker 2: to rather strongly.
Speaker 3: I think what it has become clear is that Luxon
Speaker 3: was apparently, you know, an Admira of Ardern style. He
Speaker 3: certainly you know, it's my way, all the highway with Luxon,
Speaker 3: and there is not a genuine debate. A couple of
Speaker 3: weeks ago I submitted to the Health Select Committee and
Speaker 3: it was like talking to the three monkeys, hear no evil,
Speaker 3: see no evil, and that it was passive. It was
Speaker 3: a passive situation. And I was talking about science that
Speaker 3: published scientific papers, recently published scientific papers that were raising
Speaker 3: very serious questions about risk and biotechnology. And it was
Speaker 3: at the end it was oh, thank you very much,
Speaker 3: next please. But if someone came on, as I listened
Speaker 3: to the whole proceedings, who was pro biotechnology, was oh,
Speaker 3: very good, so glad that you could come. Very interesting,
Speaker 3: and that was this is a parliament that has it
Speaker 3: has an agenda, has an ideology. It's going to go ahead,
Speaker 3: whatever the science, whatever the public opinion. It's my way
Speaker 3: or the highway. And this is what characterizes this government.
Speaker 3: And it's not just this government is parliament. Anyone who
Speaker 3: thinks that Chris Hipkins and all he did during the
Speaker 3: pandemic is going to be a better alternative at that
Speaker 3: point is completely wrong. The whole Parliament has got into
Speaker 3: a mode of functioning supported by the media that is
Speaker 3: not in the public interest. There is not in the
Speaker 3: interest of public health. They're promoting programs which are shown
Speaker 3: to be risky, which do not have benefits, which are
Speaker 3: hugely costly, which we are not going to be able
Speaker 3: to afford. Gene therapies cost around five million dollars per
Speaker 3: person and they're very risky. A program to help people
Speaker 3: with sickle celler nemia has been going on for five years,
Speaker 3: funded by Vertex technology, has so far treated twenty two
Speaker 3: people five of only five of those people had any
Speaker 3: residual benefit after one year of the procedure, and the
Speaker 3: cost was five million dollars per person, plus a lot
Speaker 3: of people suffered serious side effects during that program. And
Speaker 3: this is something that Judith Collins and Luxon have been
Speaker 3: getting up and saying we need in New Zealand. We
Speaker 3: do not need programs in New Zealand that are very
Speaker 3: risky and do not work and fail very quickly and
Speaker 3: cost a lot of money. In contrast, programs to improve
Speaker 3: diet and health have enormous, large effect sizes on a
Speaker 3: whole variety of diseases like cancer, like heart disease, like
Speaker 3: autoimmune conditions, diabetes, so public educator and they don't cost
Speaker 3: a lot. And instead we have the Deputy Health Minister
Speaker 3: David Seymour when some hapless doctor in Queenstown said they
Speaker 3: or in Wanaka said they were worried about McDonald's opening
Speaker 3: because of the possible impact on child health and when
Speaker 3: he said that, the response of David Seymour was to
Speaker 3: shut him up and say we're going to put these
Speaker 3: mu it's back in their box, when in fact, it's
Speaker 3: well known that a poor diet is causing a tsunami
Speaker 3: of illness in the population. The adulteration of our foods
Speaker 3: with a high degree of genetically altered content in the
Speaker 3: processing agents is having a catastrophic effect on public health,
Speaker 3: and yet our government is saying people who are saying
Speaker 3: that are muppets. They're not muppets. This is mainstream science.
Speaker 3: I don't want to stop people eating what they want
Speaker 3: to eat, but be aware of the fact that how
Speaker 3: your grandmother prepared food is not how multinational companies prepare
Speaker 3: food today. They prepare food using materials that come out
Speaker 3: of biotechnic batch fermentation, heavily polluted batch fermentation vats, and
Speaker 3: the things that you know like beta carotene which came
Speaker 3: from carrots that used to give the food some color.
Speaker 3: They don't come from carrots anymore. They come out of
Speaker 3: a biotech lab and they have in them anti they
Speaker 3: have pollutants in them, antibiotic genes, antibiotic resistant genes, cell
Speaker 3: division promoters. This is not from carrots. This is what
Speaker 3: I said about the We have evolved in an integrated
Speaker 3: ecosystem where everything is supporting everything else, and if you're
Speaker 3: going to introduce man made genetic structures, they're going to
Speaker 3: have a drastic effect on health. And that's precisely what
Speaker 3: we're seeing.
Speaker 2: You reminded me of what I hear not infrequently in
Speaker 2: America out of America in reference to the Democrats, and
Speaker 2: it goes like this, very simple. The Democrat Party today
Speaker 2: is not the Democrat Party of your parents and grandparents.
Speaker 2: And that's all that needs to be said. Same applies
Speaker 2: to diet and to the way things are cooked and
Speaker 2: what we eat. But of course, as somebody said to
Speaker 2: me the other day, and I think it was one
Speaker 2: of my boys, oh you're so old fashioned, dad, But
Speaker 2: it was meant to be a joke. However, I said,
Speaker 2: I'm proud to be old fashioned under the circumstances. Can
Speaker 2: I conclude with this? This is something that Professor Rob
Speaker 2: McCulloch wrote a couple of days ago, what politicians will
Speaker 2: say in their lust for power Labours Hipkins and Otargo B. C.
Speaker 2: Robertson must be held to account before the election toward
Speaker 2: the end of twenty three. In September of that year,
Speaker 2: when Hipkins was PM and Grant Robertson was well now
Speaker 2: the vice chancellor of Ottaga University, we're running the show.
Speaker 2: This is how they reported on the New Zealand economy
Speaker 2: the pre election. An economic and physical update shows no recession,
Speaker 2: a growing economy, more jobs and wages ahead of inflation.
Speaker 2: Equivalent released today shows New Zealand's economy is turning the
Speaker 2: corner economy to grow two point six percent on average
Speaker 2: over fourcast period, physical rules met return to surplus. Our
Speaker 2: economic plan to support New Zealand as dealing with the
Speaker 2: cost of living while investing in building a stronger, more
Speaker 2: resilient and inclusive economy is working. Just over six months later,
Speaker 2: New Zealand was experiencing a combination of its deepest and
Speaker 2: longest economic downturn and recessionary contraction for over thirty years,
Speaker 2: fewer jobs, none of its physical rules have been met,
Speaker 2: and a worsening cost of living crisis. It goes on,
Speaker 2: but I won't continue. It's the same, it's just a
Speaker 2: different field at the moment. To that it's politicians who
Speaker 2: are not doing their job accurately or appropriately as they should.
Speaker 2: What have I said wrong?
Speaker 3: And they're not facing hard facts that in the health system,
Speaker 3: it doesn't matter how much money you have. If you
Speaker 3: don't have health, it's not possible to enjoy life. So
Speaker 3: health is absolutely fundamental. Education is fundamental. What's going on
Speaker 3: in our classrooms today?
Speaker 2: Well I was going to mention that earlier, but we
Speaker 2: passed it by thanks for raising it.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, it's you know these are but these are fundamentals,
Speaker 3: and look common sense. It's not old fashions, is it?
Speaker 2: No? Common sense? Common sense doesn't date.
Speaker 3: No, and where we began with the lab leak. It's
Speaker 3: so off and so many people turn to look the
Speaker 3: other way. And I was thinking with the other day.
Speaker 3: It's as if you you suddenly you're standing at your
Speaker 3: front door looking out, and someone appears by your side,
Speaker 3: and you think, where did they come from? Well, of
Speaker 3: course they came from inside the house you're looking out.
Speaker 3: They came from inside the house. And where did COVID.
Speaker 2: Come from inside?
Speaker 3: Obvious that it came from inside the biotech.
Speaker 2: Out Indeed, Guy Hatchard, it's been good as always. How
Speaker 2: do people teck on to your.
Speaker 3: We put out a blog the Hatchyld Report dot com
Speaker 3: and Globe dot Global to reports and hatch Eyld Report
Speaker 3: comes out two or three times a week, and we
Speaker 3: always reference signed published science in our articles. It's very
Speaker 3: very important. We go to reputable during journals. We reference
Speaker 3: our points and we try and explain what's going on
Speaker 3: in a landlanguage that the ordinary man in the street
Speaker 3: can understand. And then we also published Globe dot Global,
Speaker 3: which comes out less frequently, but it looks at it
Speaker 3: at more depth at the biotech issues and the problems
Speaker 3: in the industry.
Speaker 2: Globe dot Global. Yeah, very good, and again thank you.
Speaker 3: It's a great pleasure as always talking to you late
Speaker 3: and you're a great observer of society.
Speaker 2: Thank you guys. Right, missus producer, we are here for
Speaker 2: podcast two seventy seven's mailroom later.
Speaker 5: How I can fit you in briefly this morning with
Speaker 5: all my list of things to do, So let's get
Speaker 5: on with it.
Speaker 6: It is I'm on a mission.
Speaker 5: Leyton Jeff says on Rodney Hyde. I have listened to
Speaker 5: this podcast a couple of times now and I have
Speaker 5: to say as a politician, I never had much faith
Speaker 5: in him. As a former prison officer myself, he back
Speaker 5: in two thousand and eight was hugely responsible for the
Speaker 5: privatization of Mount Eden Correctional Facility. I had worked in
Speaker 5: the old prison for a decade on its closing, but
Speaker 5: because of mister Hyde was one of a couple of
Speaker 5: one hundred dedicated prison staff who were made redundant, most
Speaker 5: who ended up after going through a rigorous recruitment process
Speaker 5: a greatly inferior private company. Since then, however, I think
Speaker 5: the man has matured. As I find myself listening to
Speaker 5: his interviews on URCR and reading his articles, I find
Speaker 5: myself mostly in agreement with him on most subjects. This podcast,
Speaker 5: in particular was a great one, and I admire his
Speaker 5: actions on the child sex education issue. It is just
Speaker 5: part of the attack in our democracy, and I cannot
Speaker 5: help but think that with the logic mister Hyde is
Speaker 5: now espousing, he sounds much more desirable as a politician.
Speaker 5: I totally agree with Rodney's take on our current prime minister,
Speaker 5: and one can only hope mister Luxon was listening to
Speaker 5: those remarks, although I think it would be like water
Speaker 5: running off a duck's back. But anyway, I thought I
Speaker 5: would say my five cents worth. There have been many
Speaker 5: great podcasts in your library of podcasts, but this one
Speaker 5: for me was special, and that's from Jeff.
Speaker 2: Jeff brilliant is all I can say. Absolutely outstanding right
Speaker 2: from Donald talking of Rodney Hyde. A truly broad and
Speaker 2: profound coverage which triggered for me diverse reactions now following
Speaker 2: in no particular order. Yes, wokism appeals to soft minds.
Speaker 2: It relives its adherent from the rigors of objective observation
Speaker 2: and hard intellectual analysis. Wocism is also a bedmate of
Speaker 2: progressive politics, with its self proclaimed philanthropy ignoring what is
Speaker 2: reality or what in reality is a subjective concept in
Speaker 2: its dark side, an excuse for Marxist style destruction of
Speaker 2: the status quo. A Dern knows all about that the
Speaker 2: human race stands guilty of cyclical irrational behavior, thus the
Speaker 2: swings between periods of dark ages and enlightenment. But it
Speaker 2: entirely suits the government's anathema to liberal Western democracies to
Speaker 2: ferment the seeds of their internal disunity. What better than
Speaker 2: woke avoids military intervention. Among the co conspirators of wocism
Speaker 2: are indoctrination, selective media, apathy, and stupidity. It's a good collection.
Speaker 2: When information is scarce or skewed, a sense of comfort
Speaker 2: derived from what others do or say is wrongly seen
Speaker 2: as a preferred course of action. The power of the
Speaker 2: one needs the stupidity of the others, as Bonhoeffer aptly
Speaker 2: put it.
Speaker 5: Regards don Leyton Pete says, thanks for last week's anonymous
Speaker 5: correspondent letter.
Speaker 6: Withheld until you could read it.
Speaker 5: The letter was well worth the weight, if only for
Speaker 5: the clear and easily supported statement that Maori and I
Speaker 5: see it as primarily the treaty is to activists, and
Speaker 5: government pandering to those activists are holding the country back economically.
Speaker 5: The bloke and his wife along the street are fine,
Speaker 5: as are their children. They are doing their bit. I
Speaker 5: do not wish to see us move to an ethno
Speaker 5: state driven by ethnic and inter ethnic division. I do
Speaker 5: not see a need for Mari's seats in Parliament or
Speaker 5: Mari wards in local body elections. The division is not helpful,
Speaker 5: nor the forced spirituality and suggestion that those with some
Speaker 5: Mari DNA know more about the water, the environment and
Speaker 5: families than anyone else. The issue extends to government failure
Speaker 5: to attend to sorting out the courts and the Waitangi
Speaker 5: Tribunal to remind both that Parliament is sovereign. Necessary legislation
Speaker 5: to resolve the coast water and the currently oversized public
Speaker 5: service via the Treatised Public Services Act twenty twenty is
Speaker 5: essential and required smartly.
Speaker 6: Keep up the good work, says Pete.
Speaker 2: Pete excellent. This is interesting, isn't that? Brian wrote to
Speaker 2: me and said, is that I have never heard a
Speaker 2: more useless minister answering questions. What possessed Luxelon to give
Speaker 2: that position to this idiot? I now fear more than
Speaker 2: ever for New Zealand's future. So I decided i'd reply
Speaker 2: to Brian's little note. I said, I said, your fear
Speaker 2: is well placed. Then he responded, I'm now more feared
Speaker 2: than ever. Yes, So I did my little bit.
Speaker 6: That's funny Lighton.
Speaker 5: Chris says, as usual, another great interview with Rodney Hyde.
Speaker 5: I never got on board with him when he was
Speaker 5: a politician, but I think in the the last few
Speaker 5: years he has grown a large set of cahonis.
Speaker 6: Maybe he already had them.
Speaker 5: I just didn't see it, and he says, Chris, I
Speaker 5: quite like that and support him now. I read his
Speaker 5: articles on BBNH listening to the odd RCR topic, and
Speaker 5: I too watched the videos of the school board censorship disgrace.
Speaker 5: In that episode's mail room, there was a doctri in
Speaker 5: yourself endorsing most of the old vaccines. I would also
Speaker 5: fall in that camp the old vaccines. I had them
Speaker 5: more my kids had them. However, I don't going forward
Speaker 5: all vaccines will become mRNA, including the tetanus injection, which
Speaker 5: I just cannot get on board with. We have no
Speaker 5: choice in this, and it will be forced upon all
Speaker 5: of us under the guise of the great new technology.
Speaker 5: And how much of a benefit it will be to us.
Speaker 5: I don't believe in our mRNA technology as a vaccine system.
Speaker 5: You can see all around you that COVID was bad
Speaker 5: for the world, and I don't mean Omicron, delta, etc. However,
Speaker 5: I'm talking about what it did to all societies around
Speaker 5: the world, but especially Western society. You could take it
Speaker 5: all back, not have any vaccines, no lockdowns. Imagine how
Speaker 5: much better off the world would be. Hindsight is a
Speaker 5: great thing for forming a clear perspective. The one silver
Speaker 5: lining is we get to see who the true tyrants
Speaker 5: that rule over us are and a lot more of
Speaker 5: their corruption is now in plain sight. Well that's my
Speaker 5: two cents worth, says Chris. I can't wait till the
Speaker 5: next interview, Chris, lovely to meet you. The other day,
Speaker 5: this guy bumped into us in the supermarket and introduced
Speaker 5: himself to Leyton.
Speaker 6: So nice to meet you, nice Garry.
Speaker 2: This goes back to mid February, but it passed over
Speaker 2: unwittingly previously. Firstly, I thoroughly enjoyed your latest podcast with
Speaker 2: Peter Bagotian, and I found what he had to say
Speaker 2: on the Mari culture being of detriment to itself to
Speaker 2: be one hundred percent on the mark. Myself being part Marie.
Speaker 2: It is unfortunately something I've had to come to grips with,
Speaker 2: particularly when listening to the likes of Thomas Sole or
Speaker 2: even doctor Jordan Peterson. There is a lot of victim
Speaker 2: mentality which seems to get passed down from generation to generation. Thankfully,
Speaker 2: in my family we have never taken this sort of
Speaker 2: blame game beggar type compensation mentality, and I promise you
Speaker 2: my grandmother will be rolling in a grave. I also
Speaker 2: agree with your correspondent that it is time to get
Speaker 2: doctor Guy Hatchett back in regards to GMO, where your
Speaker 2: dreams came true today, didn't they? And the deregulation of biotechnology.
Speaker 2: This is something that I'm keeping a very close eye on,
Speaker 2: but unfortunately new was coming if National and Act were
Speaker 2: to be elected into parliament that, unfortunately it would only
Speaker 2: be a matter of time. As for those of us
Speaker 2: paying attention, saw them campaign and promote the idea leading
Speaker 2: up to the election. Now there's a secondly, and there's
Speaker 2: a another page and a half, well actually another two
Speaker 2: pages and a quarter of correspondence. So there I shall
Speaker 2: leave it. But the whole essay, if you like, is
Speaker 2: worthy and I appreciate it.
Speaker 6: Leydon.
Speaker 5: Jeff says, your anonymous letter right from two seventy four
Speaker 5: was one hundred percent on the money in my opinion,
Speaker 5: not least of which is my endorsement of his wish
Speaker 5: for a double appearance by j d Vance following Trump.
Speaker 5: Thanks for the good work, says Jeff. Best wishes from
Speaker 5: Jeff the Ref and Tennessee.
Speaker 2: I'm still going to come and see you, Jeff. I
Speaker 2: don't know when or don't know how, but I'm coming
Speaker 2: to see you. It'll drop in unannounced. Doctor Michael de
Speaker 2: Percy was on point regarding progressive politicians like Adern. Today's
Speaker 2: Today's announcement would make you respond, according to wouldn't it?
Speaker 2: Obama and Trudeau they're all talking, no action. It's no
Speaker 2: wonder where mobs often exhibits Trump derangement syndrome. They dismissed
Speaker 2: Trump's all talk only to be shocked by Trump's all action.
Speaker 2: The Wokarati has never faced anyone like Trump, who was
Speaker 2: all talk and all action. In Good Morning Britain, Piers
Speaker 2: Morgan gave a brilliant advice about interpreting Trump. Focus on
Speaker 2: what he does, not what he says. Well, that's well known. Actually,
Speaker 2: that was quoted to me by Well via a friend
Speaker 2: who was a friend of an American billionaire who knew
Speaker 2: Trump well until he died. That is not Trump, that's
Speaker 2: the billionaire. Ironically, the most blatant display of woke in
Speaker 2: recent times does not come from politicians. Instead, it comes
Speaker 2: from Disney. The twenty twenty five live remake of Snow
Speaker 2: White is Disney's suicide note after overdosing on woke pills.
Speaker 2: Disney specifically hired Rachel Zegler as Snow White because she
Speaker 2: wasn't white. Rachel Zegler then Poopoo's the original nineteen thirty
Speaker 2: seven Snow White for needing a man to save her.
Speaker 2: And wait this more, in this movie, snow White single
Speaker 2: handedly fights and overpowers men much stronger than her. Oh
Speaker 2: and yes, Rachel Zigler. Zigler has Trump derangement syndrome, saying
Speaker 2: made Trump supporters and Trump voters and Trump himself never
Speaker 2: know peace. We've filled with wonderful people in the world.
Speaker 2: I hope Disney goes bankrupt for killing Marble Star Wars
Speaker 2: and pissing on Walt Disney's grave. I haven't heard you
Speaker 2: use this phrase for a long time. Later, but Disney
Speaker 2: can get off my planet. And Jay I say thank
Speaker 2: you very much, miss producer two seven eight, next week
Speaker 2: see you then, yep, all right, Now, go and do
Speaker 2: whatever you got to do. I know you're busy now
Speaker 2: to the aforementioned headline of the climate scam is over.
Speaker 2: On March twenty one, twenty twenty five, the Science of
Speaker 2: Climate Change journal published a groundbreaking study using AI Grock
Speaker 2: three to debunct debunct the man made climate crisis narrative.
Speaker 2: The paper was called a Critical Reassessment of the anthropogenic
Speaker 2: CO two global warming hypothesis. This peer reviewed study and
Speaker 2: literature review not only reassesses Man's role in the climate
Speaker 2: change narrative, it also reveals a general trend to exaggerate
Speaker 2: global warming. Furthermore, this paper demonstrates that using AI to
Speaker 2: critically review scientific data will soon become the standard in
Speaker 2: both the physical and medical sciences. How you respond to
Speaker 2: that is entirely up to you. Makes me a bit nervous,
Speaker 2: But let's carry on. After the debarkle of man made
Speaker 2: climate change and the corruption the corruption of evidence based
Speaker 2: medicine by Big Farmer, the use of AI for government
Speaker 2: funded research will become normalized and standards will be developed
Speaker 2: for its use in peer reviewed journals. The use of
Speaker 2: AI and clinical trial development and analysis will drive innovation
Speaker 2: in Western medicine in unprecedented ways. The FDA Food and
Speaker 2: Drug Administration must adopt AI for analyzing pre clinical and
Speaker 2: clinical trial research and design to keep pace with current trends.
Speaker 2: Now published on the twenty third of March in Science
Speaker 2: and Climate Change, the paper A critical reassessment of the
Speaker 2: anthropogenic CO two global warming hypothesis, suggests natural forces like
Speaker 2: solar activity and temperature cycles are the real culprits. This
Speaker 2: study marks a historic milestone to the best of current knowledge.
Speaker 2: It's the first peer reviewed climates shigiens paper with an
Speaker 2: aisystem as the lead author. GROCK three Beta, developed by Xai,
Speaker 2: spearheaded the research, drafting the manuscript with human co authors
Speaker 2: providing critical guidance. It uses unadjusted records to argue human
Speaker 2: CO two only four percent of the annual carbon cycle,
Speaker 2: that human CO two vanishes into oceans and forests within
Speaker 2: three to four years, not centuries, as the Intergovernmental Panel
Speaker 2: on Climate Change claims. During the twenty twenty COVID lockdowns,
Speaker 2: a seven percent emissions drop that amounted to two point
Speaker 2: four billion tons of CO two should have caused a
Speaker 2: noticeable dip in the more to lower CO two curve.
Speaker 2: Yet noblip appeared, hinting nature's dominance. Researcher Demetrius katsuyais cited
Speaker 2: in the study bolsters this view. His isotopic analysis finds
Speaker 2: no lasting human CO two signature in the atmosphere over centuries,
Speaker 2: challenging its impact. His statistical work adds a twist. Temperature
Speaker 2: drives CO two levels, not vice versa. Shall I repeat
Speaker 2: that temperature drives CO two levels, not vice versa, With
Speaker 2: heat leading CO two shifts by six to twelve months
Speaker 2: in modern data and eight hundred years in ice cores,
Speaker 2: It's like thunder before lightning, says Willy Soon, warming pulls
Speaker 2: CO two from oceans. The study also faults IPCC models
Speaker 2: for exaggerating warming. Models predict up to zero point five
Speaker 2: percent per decade, but satellite and ground data shows just
Speaker 2: zero point one to zero point one three degrees centigrade.
Speaker 2: Arctic co ice, expected to shrink sharply, has stabilized since
Speaker 2: two thousand seven. These models overplaced two's role, says David Leggetts.
Speaker 2: They don't fit reality a little more the sun takes
Speaker 2: set a stage instead. Analyzing twenty seven solar energy estimates,
Speaker 2: the team finds versions with bigger fluctuations, like peaks in
Speaker 2: the nineteen forties and nineteen eighties, match temperature shifts better
Speaker 2: than the IPCC's flat solar model. Adjusted temperature records, cooling
Speaker 2: older readings and boosting recent ones inflate warning to one
Speaker 2: degree centigrade since eighteen fifty, while unadjusted rural data show
Speaker 2: a gentler half a degree rice. This up ends the
Speaker 2: climate story, says Jonathan Cohler. Nature, not humanity, may hold
Speaker 2: the wheel. Merging AI analysis with human insight, the study
Speaker 2: seeks to spark debate and shift focus to natural drivers.
Speaker 2: It's available at Science of Climate Change, and the authors say,
Speaker 2: we invite the public and scientists to like to explore
Speaker 2: this evidence. Let's question what we've assumed and dig into
Speaker 2: what the data really say. Now, how much coverage that'll
Speaker 2: get in the mainstream media remains to be seen. My
Speaker 2: bet is very little. There will be scientists in this country,
Speaker 2: so called scientists, I'd call them failed scientists in many regards,
Speaker 2: who will try and leverage their position, shall we say,
Speaker 2: or their so called reputation into the government not shifting
Speaker 2: its ridiculous stance. At this point of time, minister Watts
Speaker 2: needs to wake up. I say that, with the best
Speaker 2: of intention, mister Watts needs to wake up and open
Speaker 2: his mind a little or one might start asking questions
Speaker 2: about his true intent. Now, all of that came from
Speaker 2: one article which runs one, two, three, four, five, five
Speaker 2: and a bit pages called the Climate Scam is over
Speaker 2: by Robert W. Malone. And everybody should be familiar with
Speaker 2: Robert Malone by now, and it provides references to able
Speaker 2: anybody to access more information. And I would like to
Speaker 2: see many people, many people follow up on it. And
Speaker 2: on that pleasing note, I will say that takes us
Speaker 2: out for podcasts to seventy seven back for two seventy
Speaker 2: eight soon and we'll cover more of this climate story undoubtedly,
Speaker 2: if not next week than very shortly. But that's my intent.
Speaker 2: So Latin that newstalksb dot co dot nz or Caroenn
Speaker 2: at newstalksb dot co dot nz. As usual, thank you
Speaker 2: for listening and we shall talk soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you for more from News Talks EDB. Listen live
Speaker 1: on air or online, and keep our shows with you
Speaker 1: wherever you go with our podcast on iHeartRadio