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 powered by news talks it B.
Speaker 2: Welcome to podcasts two eighty four for May fourteen, twenty
Speaker 2: twenty five. Deceits, corruption, blackmail, threats, cowardice, dismissal, just a
Speaker 2: few words to indicate how the world works. One such
Speaker 2: example concerns doctor Pierre Corey, who was in the thick
Speaker 2: of it for four years or longer, but still not
Speaker 2: entirely free of it. I quote you a few lines
Speaker 2: from his book The War on iver Mecdon. I soon
Speaker 2: discovered that the corruption and deceit was hardly limited to
Speaker 2: the pharmaceutical space. The entire medical industrial complex, including our
Speaker 2: governmental and international regulatory agencies, big farmer, public and private
Speaker 2: healthcare systems and hospital networks, medical schools and their journals
Speaker 2: had been collectively captured. Now to say that per Cory
Speaker 2: is a generous man is an understatement. He is very
Speaker 2: generous with his time. His attitude to just about everything
Speaker 2: is positive and giving. Is a very good speaker, and
Speaker 2: we shall talk with him soon, but just to exemplify
Speaker 2: the fact that he is not on his own with
Speaker 2: what he has been through, and I'm sure most people
Speaker 2: listening will be familiar with it in some way, but
Speaker 2: to show that there are others who are involved in
Speaker 2: trying to improve the world, I suppose let me refer
Speaker 2: to Mary and Demasi, an Australian science writer. She was
Speaker 2: with ABC Radio and Sydney or maybe television or maybe both,
Speaker 2: but she was for a considerable period of time, but
Speaker 2: she went independent and I've referenced to her be for
Speaker 2: she doesn't do interviews because she doesn't want to who
Speaker 2: she wants to retain her independence. I think is the
Speaker 2: way that she put it to me. Anyway, Merk rigged
Speaker 2: Gardasil trials to conceal Harm's court documents reveal and this
Speaker 2: was published by her just a few days ago. In
Speaker 2: what would become one of the most explosive pharmaceutical lawsuits
Speaker 2: in US history, Roby versus Merk, centered on the Gardasil
Speaker 2: HPV vaccine and is set to resume in Los Angeles
Speaker 2: in September of this year. At the core of the
Speaker 2: case are allegations that Merk misrepresented the safety profile of Gardasil,
Speaker 2: allegations now supported by powerful evidence. A newly unsealed expert
Speaker 2: report from Danish physician and world renowned research methodologist doctor
Speaker 2: Peter C. Gooshki, Well that's my interpretation, submitted as part
Speaker 2: of the pre trial motion, underpins the claims against Merk.
Speaker 2: His three hundred and fifty page forensic analysis, now part
Speaker 2: of the official court record, lays bare a chilling narrative
Speaker 2: of clinical trial rigging, regulatory failure, and global deception. According
Speaker 2: to Weergotski, Merk distorted its clinical trial data so thoroughly
Speaker 2: that the results were rendered scientifically meaningless. Gotshki's assessment is
Speaker 2: stark and unequivocal. The Mirk sponsored trials cannot be used
Speaker 2: to properly assess the harms of the vaccines, he writes,
Speaker 2: adding that the company squandered the opportunity to legitimately study
Speaker 2: the safety of Gardasil. After examining one hundred and twelve
Speaker 2: thousand pages of regulatory documents, Gotshki concluded that Mirk manipulated
Speaker 2: its data to such an extent that it would be difficult,
Speaker 2: if not impossible, for any independent scientist or even government
Speaker 2: regulators to accurately assess the vaccines harm. It now raises
Speaker 2: the fundamental question, were millions of adolescents misled into consenting
Speaker 2: to a vaccine whose true safety risks were deliberately obscured.
Speaker 2: Now there is more to the article, but it's not
Speaker 2: the point of today's podcast. But that's just one example.
Speaker 2: Here's a second, The Crisis of Unreliable Science, a pharmacologist
Speaker 2: call for radical reform. Each year, biomedical scientists pump out
Speaker 2: about a million new papers, but a troubling truth hides
Speaker 2: in plain sight. Much of this work cannot be replicated.
Speaker 2: Far from a small glitch, this is a colossal crisis,
Speaker 2: squandering billions, eroding faith in science, and stalling genuine breakthroughs.
Speaker 2: In an interview with Chemical and Engineering News, pharmacologist Zaba Zavo,
Speaker 2: a professor at the University of Freiburg, Switzerland, confronts this
Speaker 2: chaos head on previewing his recently published book Unreliable. His
Speaker 2: verdict the scientific system is fractured beyond repair, and band
Speaker 2: aid fixes won't cut it. Nothing short of a revolution
Speaker 2: will do. But there is more, and it goes back
Speaker 2: a little further, just to show that there's nothing really
Speaker 2: new about from the book Betrayers of Truth, which I
Speaker 2: think is about fifty years old now or thereabouts. Fraud
Speaker 2: and de Seit in the Halls of Science by William
Speaker 2: Broad and Nicholas Wade, and chapter two is deceit in history.
Speaker 2: Through experimental science, we have been able to learn all
Speaker 2: these facts about the natural world, triumphing over darkness and ignorance,
Speaker 2: to classify the stars and to estimate their masses, composition distances,
Speaker 2: and velocities, to classify living species, and to unravel their
Speaker 2: genetic relations. These great accomplishments of experimental science were achieved
Speaker 2: by men who had in common only a few things.
Speaker 2: They were honest and actually made the observations they recorded,
Speaker 2: and they published the results of their work in a
Speaker 2: form permitting others to duplicate the experiment or observation. So
Speaker 2: says the Berkeley Physics Course, an influential text that has
Speaker 2: been used across the United States to impress cottage students
Speaker 2: with both the substance and tradition of modern physics. As
Speaker 2: with non scientific systems. As with non scientific systems of belief, however,
Speaker 2: the elements insisted on most strongly are often those with
Speaker 2: the least factual reliability. The great scientists of the past
Speaker 2: were not all so honest, and they did not always
Speaker 2: obtain the experimental results they reported. Claudius Ptolemy, known as
Speaker 2: the greatest astronomer of antiquity, did most of his observing
Speaker 2: not at night on the coast of Egypt, but during
Speaker 2: the day in the great Library of Alexandria, where he
Speaker 2: appropriated the work of a Greek astronomer and proceeded to
Speaker 2: call it his own. There's more, but we'll finish with
Speaker 2: the last, and obviously the most recent. The American physicist
Speaker 2: Robert Millikan won the Nobel Prize for being the first
Speaker 2: to measure the electric charge of an electron. But Millican
Speaker 2: extensively misrepresented his work in order to make his experimental
Speaker 2: results seem more convincing than was in fact the case.
Speaker 2: So there's some examples of the fact that we might
Speaker 2: be believing things that aren't true even in this day
Speaker 2: and age. In fact, I think it's fair to say
Speaker 2: even more in this day and age. However, that is
Speaker 2: not the case. I believe with doctor Pierre Cory. The
Speaker 2: problem with his issues lies with the opposition to what
Speaker 2: he has produced. I believe that they're the ones with
Speaker 2: the problems and if anybody from the medical profession or
Speaker 2: the scientific world has different opinions that they feel strongly
Speaker 2: about that, I'd love to hear from you with full
Speaker 2: respect and hear what you have to say and where
Speaker 2: you disagree with what you're about to hear, I think
Speaker 2: that that would be a fine thing. Latent at Newstalks
Speaker 2: ADB dot co dot Nz we'll hear from doctor Corey in.
Speaker 3: Just a moment.
Speaker 2: Buccolan is a natural oral vaccine in a tablet form
Speaker 2: called Bacterial Nice Safe. It'll boost your natural protection against
Speaker 2: bacterial infections in your chest and throat. A three day
Speaker 2: course of seven Bucklan tablets will help your body build
Speaker 2: up to three months of immunity against bugs which cause
Speaker 2: bacterial cold symptoms. So who can take buccolan well, the
Speaker 2: whole family from two years of age and upwards. A
Speaker 2: course of Bucclan tablets offers cost effective and safe protection
Speaker 2: from colds and chills. Protection becomes effective a few days
Speaker 2: after you take buccolan and lasts for to three months
Speaker 2: following the three day course. Buccolan can be taken throughout
Speaker 2: the cold season, over winter, or all the year round.
Speaker 2: And remember buckelan is not intended as an alternative to
Speaker 2: influenza vaccination, but may be used along with the flu
Speaker 2: vaccination for added protection. And keep in mind that millions
Speaker 2: of doses have been taken by Kiwis for over fifty years.
Speaker 2: Only available from your pharmacist. Always read the label and
Speaker 2: users directed, and see your doctor if systems persist. Farmer Broker, Auckland,
Speaker 2: Layton Smith. Ivermectin is a dirty word in the media.
Speaker 2: It doesn't work. It's a deadly horse steawormer, prescribed and
Speaker 2: promoted as you'll be called a right wing quack and
Speaker 2: be banned from social media or lose your license to
Speaker 2: practice medicine. And yet entire countries wiped out the virus
Speaker 2: with it, and more than ninety five studies now show
Speaker 2: it to be unequivocally effective in preventing and treating COVID nineteen.
Speaker 2: Ask you isulved this question? If it didn't work, why was
Speaker 2: there a coordinated global campaign to cancel it? What is
Speaker 2: the truth about this decades old Nobel Prize winning medication. Now,
Speaker 2: the words I've just quoted are from the inside cover
Speaker 2: of the book The War on Ivermectin. It was published
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty three, and it was sold all over
Speaker 2: the world. To say that it's worth reading is an
Speaker 2: understatement of major proportion. But I had trouble finding a copy,
Speaker 2: at least one that I could buy immediately. I only
Speaker 2: had a few days notice. Subtitled The Medicine that Saved
Speaker 2: millions and could have entered the pandemic, its author is
Speaker 2: as you'll discover a fascinating individual, doctor per Corey. It's
Speaker 2: a pleasure to finally get to talk with.
Speaker 3: You, Leaton. My pleasure as well. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2: We're doing this between golf games.
Speaker 3: I gather exactly I'm on vac but.
Speaker 4: I wanted to make time for you. I think it's
Speaker 4: an important conversation.
Speaker 2: Always, well, you certainly do your fair share of media,
Speaker 2: so so I want to start just with we'll jump
Speaker 2: around a little bit. I actually we'll jump around a lot.
Speaker 2: It's my podcast. But yeah, I want to start with
Speaker 2: a little experience that you had because this this intrigued
Speaker 2: me with a political legend, and this comes under the
Speaker 2: heating right at the right near the beginning of the book,
Speaker 2: where you are talking about old Pierre as opposed to
Speaker 2: New Pierre. But old Pierre was a fascinating character before
Speaker 2: he changed. So who was old Pierre?
Speaker 3: Oh boy? Yeah, So that was that was the opening
Speaker 3: of my book.
Speaker 4: Well really described, you know, my kind of awakening in
Speaker 4: COVID and so compared to what I believed and what
Speaker 4: I thought were was the truth to what I came
Speaker 4: to believe. Uh, it created an all in a new Pier.
Speaker 4: So the old Pierre, as I describe it, the old
Speaker 4: Pierre read the New York Times and thought it was
Speaker 4: the arbiter of truth.
Speaker 3: And if you really wanted to know.
Speaker 4: What was going on, you read the New York Times
Speaker 4: and you would substitute whatever your main major daily newspaper
Speaker 4: is in New Zealand. But that's the quote unquote paper
Speaker 4: of record in the United States. I read that since
Speaker 4: I was six. I believed in the high impact medical journals.
Speaker 4: I thought only the best science and scientists published there.
Speaker 4: I believed in our healthcare public health agencies. I thought
Speaker 4: only the best science and scientists would form those opinions
Speaker 4: and give that kind of guidance I trusted. I don't
Speaker 4: think I really questioned mainstream media. I kind of felt
Speaker 4: like they're just reporting on stories, and that's what was
Speaker 4: going on, and I was just very basically trusting in
Speaker 4: the institutions of society, and that was a world that
Speaker 4: I lived in, and I thought every thing was I
Speaker 4: don't want to say normal, but I just that was
Speaker 4: my frame of reference for the world I lived in.
Speaker 3: And lady, you want to ask me what the new
Speaker 3: Pierre is.
Speaker 2: Well, let's put it. Let's put it this way. The
Speaker 2: title of the book is The War on Either Migdon,
Speaker 2: and it just came to me as I was reading,
Speaker 2: and I thought a good subtitle would be The Education
Speaker 2: of Pierre Corey, Yes, because.
Speaker 3: Because it really does describe a journey for sure.
Speaker 2: So what about the new peer?
Speaker 4: I mean, the new Pierre has come to learn that
Speaker 4: what the old Pierre believed is simply not true. And
Speaker 4: I hate going like dark or negative thoughts so quickly.
Speaker 4: I mean, the new Pierre has come to realize that
Speaker 4: the old Pierre's impressions and perceptions of the world were
Speaker 4: simply not based in fact.
Speaker 3: They were based in perception.
Speaker 4: And you know, I became very inspired and challenge by COVID,
Speaker 4: and from the get go, before even the hit us shores,
Speaker 4: me and my colleagues were.
Speaker 3: Starting to study look at this.
Speaker 4: You know, I was a pulmonary and critical care physician,
Speaker 4: you know, very high up in academia in the United States.
Speaker 4: I was the chief of the Critical care service as
Speaker 4: well as the director of the ICU at a major
Speaker 4: academic medical center here at the University of Wisconsin, huge
Speaker 4: research funded institution, and so I was in charge of
Speaker 4: our initial COVID response. And I was doing that while
Speaker 4: studying the disease that was again it was a pulmonary
Speaker 4: and critical care disease that was coming at us. And
Speaker 4: that began, you know, three or four or five years
Speaker 4: now of deep study, talking to doctors, reading pre prints,
Speaker 4: you know, reading everything I could, and then also just
Speaker 4: keenly observing various therapies, how the variants were changing, how
Speaker 4: people became ill, because it wasn't you know, it's a
Speaker 4: similar disease, but the variants did change and things became
Speaker 4: more difficult than less difficult.
Speaker 3: Does various change.
Speaker 4: And so I've been immersed in the science of COVID
Speaker 4: and particularly the ivermactin, you know, so I became I
Speaker 4: would consider myself one of the clinical experts in the
Speaker 4: use of ivermactin in.
Speaker 3: COVID, and so I knew the truth about ivermactin.
Speaker 2: How did that end into your life?
Speaker 4: Yeah, So what happened was is when I first bonded
Speaker 4: with my colleague Paul Marris, so he and I were
Speaker 4: good friends. We shared a lot of research into IVY
Speaker 4: vitamin C, so we'd been friendly and interacted, and he's
Speaker 4: a very prominent physician, so he was the most published
Speaker 4: practicing critical care medicine doctor in the history of our specialties,
Speaker 4: very very famous, well known. He and I become friends
Speaker 4: because we did neutral research on a topic, and so
Speaker 4: people reached out to him because the governments were not
Speaker 4: coming up with treatment protocols.
Speaker 3: They were just saying like stay.
Speaker 4: Home until your lips turned blue when you got to
Speaker 4: the hospital. They didn't do anything but like oxygen and
Speaker 4: mentally and Thailand all orgacito minifin. I mean, it was
Speaker 4: absolutely outrageous that no one was trying to treat this disease.
Speaker 4: And there are all these arguments, there's no studies to
Speaker 4: show you how to treat it, so basically do nothing.
Speaker 4: It was just brazenly absurd reasoning. And so we started
Speaker 4: to study various therapies and we came up with a
Speaker 4: hospital protocol and so some people, prominent people asked Paul
Speaker 4: to form a group to put out protocols. So we
Speaker 4: formed a nonprofit organization called the FLCCC Alliance, and we
Speaker 4: started to post protocols first in the hospital. We did
Speaker 4: not have an early treatment protocol for another six months.
Speaker 3: But what Paul did was very clever.
Speaker 4: We were following the data on various therapeutics you could
Speaker 4: use as now patient, and we'd had this chart and
Speaker 4: he would put like green, yellow, and red lights, you know,
Speaker 4: in terms of how much the evidence was showing support
Speaker 4: for various therapies, and iver mactin was always on that
Speaker 4: chart with a question mark because we'd heard some things
Speaker 4: that ivermectin may be effective, but we had no data,
Speaker 4: we had no science, no trials. And it was really
Speaker 4: October of twenty twenty, probably what is six seven months
Speaker 4: into the pandemic, when all of a sudden, a series
Speaker 4: of studies from various places around the world started coming
Speaker 4: out showing this incredible efficacy of ivermactin. I granted they
Speaker 4: were small studies, but there's nothing wrong with a small study,
Speaker 4: because what a small study can't do is it can't
Speaker 4: detect small benefits. But when a small study detects large benefits,
Speaker 4: you have a lot of difficulty explaining those ways. And
Speaker 4: so we were seeing these immense benefits come out from
Speaker 4: these studies, and Paul brought it to our attention in
Speaker 4: the group, and we put it into a protocol. We
Speaker 4: had an early treatment protocol. We added many other medicines,
Speaker 4: you know, subsequent to that. But that's really what happened.
Speaker 4: And when Paul, when those first few trials, Paul picked
Speaker 4: up on that signal, I said, I'm going to write
Speaker 4: a review paper on all of the emerging evidence of
Speaker 4: IBA in COVID. And it was a really hard paper
Speaker 4: to write. For one reason, laden is that every time
Speaker 4: I was about to finish it and uploaded to a
Speaker 4: preprint server or submitted to a journal, another study would
Speaker 4: come out. And it seemed like every week there was
Speaker 4: a new study. And I always make the joke that
Speaker 4: I had a reference manager for my manuscripts, which didn't
Speaker 4: work very well. So I was manually reordering my references and.
Speaker 3: Talked hours hours and hours and hours. But anyway, that's
Speaker 3: kind of the story.
Speaker 4: And I put out that paper in November of twenty twenty,
Speaker 4: and then Senator Ron Johnson, who was like me. He
Speaker 4: was similarly, you know, very kind of disappointed as a
Speaker 4: mild word. I mean, he was irate that the government
Speaker 4: was doing nothing to provide guidance on treatment, and so
Speaker 4: he held these hearings. I testified for the first time
Speaker 4: actually in May of twenty twenty on the critical need
Speaker 4: for cortico steroids in the hospital phase of the disease.
Speaker 4: And by the way, I did that at a time
Speaker 4: when every national and international healthcare organization around the world
Speaker 4: was recommending against cortico steroids. So I got into my
Speaker 4: first rodeo in COVID was cordico steroids because I got
Speaker 4: hammered for that.
Speaker 2: Right, just steroids or what exactly they are.
Speaker 4: There's a strong anti inflammatory ammino suppressants, so they suppressed inflammation.
Speaker 4: So the things like prednozone or hydro cortizone you might
Speaker 4: have heard of, or quarters and those are cordico steroids,
Speaker 4: and and everybody was saying don't use them, even though
Speaker 4: these patients were hyper inflaming. Then their lungs were actually
Speaker 4: failing from excessive inflammation.
Speaker 3: So it was not really a stretch to know that
Speaker 3: it was important.
Speaker 4: And we had a lot of scientific evidence from stars
Speaker 4: and mers, but yet everybody's recommending against it. And it
Speaker 4: was just bizarre because Paul and I are expert clinicians
Speaker 4: and we've been at the bedside trying to keep patients
Speaker 4: alive for you know, decades, Like we know stuff that works,
Speaker 4: we know it doesn't work, and we were using COVID
Speaker 4: to good effect.
Speaker 3: And so that was kind of the first thing. And
Speaker 3: and but I'll just say that first chapter.
Speaker 4: Although I was attacked viciously, even by my own university,
Speaker 4: within three months it became the standard of care worldwide.
Speaker 4: So people forget that my early, my early should I say,
Speaker 4: dissent in treatment of COVID was later validated.
Speaker 3: But when it got.
Speaker 2: Sorry, was it was it validated with recognition?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Well no, no, no, no, no no one ever said, hey,
Speaker 4: doctor Grace, sorry.
Speaker 3: We attacked you.
Speaker 4: No that that goes water under the bridge, no one,
Speaker 4: no one, No one ever apologizes. But I know that
Speaker 4: I was validated because what I had said earlier became
Speaker 4: the standard of care. But no, there's no public you know,
Speaker 4: championing or you get what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: Late, So.
Speaker 4: But then you know, the same thing happened with ivermactin
Speaker 4: is that we had this incredible sign The first patient
Speaker 4: I treated turned around overnight with ivermactin. And I was
Speaker 4: also talked to the doctors from various places around the
Speaker 4: world that they were just telling me these incredible benefits.
Speaker 4: I mean, nobody was dying in places they were using ivermactin.
Speaker 4: I talked to patients in South America and India, plus
Speaker 4: all of the studies showed the same thing. And then
Speaker 4: I got to testify again in Senator Johnston's hearing in
Speaker 4: December of twenty twenty, and that testimony went viral, and
Speaker 4: then ivermactin became a real issue. It became it was
Speaker 4: on the tongues of everybody. Everyone was considering it.
Speaker 3: But when I first testified, I listen.
Speaker 4: I didn't think I would get a ticker tape parade,
Speaker 4: but I thought people would appreciate that we'd identified this
Speaker 4: really positive data signal and they would incorporate it into
Speaker 4: their protocols and people would start to use it. But
Speaker 4: this is where my life changed, is that the opposite happened,
Speaker 4: and I was very confused. I really did know what
Speaker 4: was going on, but instead it was immediately attacked, dismissed.
Speaker 4: I was personally attacked Paul Marreck was personally attacked. Hit
Speaker 4: jobs showed up in the media, and I saw these
Speaker 4: blatant distortions and untruths being published by the major media
Speaker 4: organizations around the world. And they all had the same formula,
Speaker 4: same template, used similar quotes from pedigree doctors from these
Speaker 4: high fluting agencies and or universities.
Speaker 3: And it was to say, it was disappointing. It was
Speaker 3: really a kind of disorienting.
Speaker 2: Did the word corruption, did the word corruption?
Speaker 3: And not at not initially?
Speaker 4: No. And I'll tell you why I didn't leap to
Speaker 4: corruption initially. It is because there's this thing in medicine.
Speaker 4: I don't know if you're aware of it, but there's
Speaker 4: a field of medicine that actually was first originated in
Speaker 4: the early nineteen nineties, and it's called evidence based medicine.
Speaker 4: And it was this development where we as a field
Speaker 4: decided to really make sure that any treatments we used
Speaker 4: have sufficient evidence of safety and efficacy. And part of
Speaker 4: that field is assessing or assigning a quality of evidence
Speaker 4: to everything, and so.
Speaker 3: It's a very cautious type of thing.
Speaker 4: It's first member, do no harm, right, But also they
Speaker 4: just wanted to make sure that the way we treated
Speaker 4: diseases had scientific evidence to support them, and I believed
Speaker 4: in evidence based medicine how was practice, But I came
Speaker 4: to find out that evidence based medicine got corrupted and
Speaker 4: distorted from its original precepts. And so when it was
Speaker 4: when my first recommendations were not accepted, like I'd been
Speaker 4: used to that, I'd had evidence based medicine arguments with
Speaker 4: colleagues for a decade, because every time I said something worked,
Speaker 4: they were like, where's the random controlled trial to show that.
Speaker 4: There's this trial that shows this this trial that shows
Speaker 4: that the evidence is conflicting. It's controversial, and I'm I
Speaker 4: had some of these tired arguments later, but as a physician.
Speaker 3: I knew what worked.
Speaker 4: I mean, I was doing stuff in my practice, in
Speaker 4: my ICU. I could see patients turning around if I
Speaker 4: did stuff to them. But yet I'd be lambasted with
Speaker 4: all of these evidence based medicine arguments that what I
Speaker 4: was actually doing to help people wasn't working.
Speaker 3: And so it was a dystopian world a little bit.
Speaker 4: And and so at first I thought this was about
Speaker 4: an argument over evidence. Is that the agencies around the
Speaker 4: world and the scientists around the world we're not going
Speaker 4: to rescommend something until they had what's called high quality,
Speaker 4: rigorous evidence. You know, my word that I'm turning patients
Speaker 4: around was not enough. We needed the big trial, right even.
Speaker 2: Though result called up just a second, I'm intrigued. You're
Speaker 2: in a hospital, you're working in a hospital, and you're
Speaker 2: doing all this and you're surrounded by other medical people,
Speaker 2: doctors in space have you.
Speaker 3: Yep?
Speaker 2: Couldn't they see what you were seeing as the result?
Speaker 3: Well, here's the thing.
Speaker 4: No, because they're not involved with my patients and me
Speaker 4: telling them that I'm seeing patients turn around with the
Speaker 4: use of a certain drug, they'd have to take my
Speaker 4: word for it.
Speaker 3: And they were I'm.
Speaker 4: Just say, propagandized with so much negativity towards potential treatments
Speaker 4: for COVID. Right, So just real quick, as you mentioned,
Speaker 4: I wrote the book The War and I vermactin the
Speaker 4: one of my colleagues could have written the book The
Speaker 4: War on hydroxy chloroquin because if you read my book
Speaker 4: when I when I described the war and I remactin,
Speaker 4: it was the same exact war as hydroxychlorquin a year prior,
Speaker 4: the same tactic, same results. And so now I'm kind
Speaker 4: of jumping to. What I've learned is that me low cost,
Speaker 4: widely available, effective therapeutic that threatens the financial interest or
Speaker 4: the markets that popped up in COVID, not only just
Speaker 4: for the vaccines, but remdesivir, pack, Slovid, molnipevir, all of
Speaker 4: these pipeline patented pharmaceuticals, those, all these cheap, safe, effective,
Speaker 4: repurpose therapies threaten them. And so what they do to
Speaker 4: those therapies is they employ disinformation campaigns. And when I
Speaker 4: first gave my testimony and ivermactin and the response to it,
Speaker 4: I couldn't understand it.
Speaker 3: I didn't I didn't know what was going on.
Speaker 4: I thought this is more about just like people arguing
Speaker 4: about wanting, you know, the best evidence.
Speaker 3: And I thought it was more of a scientific argument.
Speaker 4: And it was only four months after that when I
Speaker 4: was still confused, although I started to get other signals
Speaker 4: that there was something more nefarious than a scientific disagreement.
Speaker 4: One of the first signs was my review paper, which
Speaker 4: had been accepted for publication after passing three rounds of
Speaker 4: rigorous peer review by senior scientists, three of them selected
Speaker 4: from the NIH and CDC in the US.
Speaker 3: The journal had accepted it for publication, but they wouldn't
Speaker 3: publish it. And week after week went by, and I.
Speaker 4: Was getting really disturbed by this because it was the
Speaker 4: winter of twenty twenty twenty one, which was the highest
Speaker 4: death rates in this country since before or since, I mean,
Speaker 4: it was a wicked winter of death from COVID, and
Speaker 4: they wouldn't publish my papers, and I finally I wrote
Speaker 4: an accusatory email to the journal. I said, I suspect
Speaker 4: scientific misconduct, and within a day the editor reached out
Speaker 4: to my editor and we'd learned that they were retracting
Speaker 4: the paper.
Speaker 3: They were not going to publish it. Your question was answered,
Speaker 3: My question was answered.
Speaker 4: And that's when I finally realized I was up against something.
Speaker 4: I didn't know what it was, but it wasn't good,
Speaker 4: and it wasn't scientific, it wasn't humanitarian. I knew there
Speaker 4: was a force that was working against what we were
Speaker 4: trying to do, which has helped people in the world,
Speaker 4: and so I started get the feeling like there was
Speaker 4: something out there that was working against us. And that
Speaker 4: was the first time when I realized.
Speaker 3: This wasn't just a scientific argument.
Speaker 4: And then what changed my life and which inspired that book,
Speaker 4: was in March of twenty twenty one, so four months
Speaker 4: after my testimony, I got an email one morning from
Speaker 4: someone I didn't know. It was a two line email,
Speaker 4: and it was from a guy named Professor William B. Grant,
Speaker 4: and he's one of the most published researchers on vitamin
Speaker 4: D in the world. And he wrote me an email
Speaker 4: out of the blue, said, dear doctor Corey, what they're
Speaker 4: doing to ivermectin. They've been doing to vitamin D for decades,
Speaker 4: and he included a link to an article called the
Speaker 4: Disinformation Playbook. And I was really intrigued by this email,
Speaker 4: so I click on the article and I start reading
Speaker 4: and it's written by an organization called the Union for
Speaker 4: Concerns Scientists. It was written in twenty seventeen, before the pandemic,
Speaker 4: and it outlines what industries do when science emergers that's
Speaker 4: inconvenient to their interests. And they're named after American football plays.
Speaker 4: It's like the fake, the fix, the screen, the blitz,
Speaker 4: the diversion, And I'm reading the descriptions of these tactics
Speaker 4: and I'm like, oh my god, Suddenly it's like I
Speaker 4: had the teacher's addition to what was going on because
Speaker 4: I had I had dozens of examples of each of
Speaker 4: those tactics being deployed against ivermactin in the prior four months,
Speaker 4: and I realized that I was like had a front
Speaker 4: row seat and I was the target of a global
Speaker 4: disinformation campaign against ivermactin. And that's kind of one of
Speaker 4: the probably one of the biggest, not the only biggest
Speaker 4: awakenings that the world that I thought I lived in
Speaker 4: was operating by very different principles and forces.
Speaker 2: How did that affect you?
Speaker 4: Oh, it's an odd answer, but in a way, I
Speaker 4: wouldn't say it made me happy, But yeah, I'm always
Speaker 4: trying to figure out problems and understand ways to navigate
Speaker 4: and go.
Speaker 3: Forward and to help.
Speaker 4: That article helped me really positively because now I felt
Speaker 4: I understood the problem and what I was up against
Speaker 4: and how I could maybe start to approach it because
Speaker 4: I was really confused for four months. I started having
Speaker 4: suspicions that there was something going on, and there's probably
Speaker 4: people who didn't want IVERMAC them to be recommended for everyone.
Speaker 4: But when I read that article, it really brought everything
Speaker 4: to a sharp focus, and it was interesting about the
Speaker 4: disinformation playbook. It was invented in the nineteen fifties by
Speaker 4: a pr firm, so it was literally it's a playbook
Speaker 4: put together by a public relations firm that was hired
Speaker 4: by the tobacco industry. When science emerged that was inconvenient
Speaker 4: to their interests, right, the science around cancer, and so
Speaker 4: the disinformation around tobacco had been practiced for fifty years,
Speaker 4: but the pharmaceutical industry have honed that to like an
Speaker 4: assassin level. And the other thing is Fharma has more
Speaker 4: control than tobacco because Farmer is one of the biggest
Speaker 4: advertisers in the world, particularly in the United States tapers, televisions,
Speaker 4: you know, not New Zealand, as I understand, but here
Speaker 4: it is.
Speaker 2: But third in the list of big expenders, oh for sure.
Speaker 2: And in lobbying and congress, farmers number one. It's two
Speaker 2: to three times the coal and gas budget, as I've understood,
Speaker 2: the number one advertiser in American media. And so they
Speaker 2: literally control all of the information sources. And so people
Speaker 2: listen to media and television newspapers for like health guidance,
Speaker 2: you're not going to hear any centing opinions. Then what's
Speaker 2: in the interest of the pharmaceutal industry and why people
Speaker 2: don't understand.
Speaker 4: That to this day. I just I can't figure that out.
Speaker 4: Why people have not figured that out well.
Speaker 2: On a much smaller scale, it's it's not non existent,
Speaker 2: if I might put it that way, not non existent
Speaker 2: in this country. Uh, it's it's much smaller. But but
Speaker 2: I know that that has happened, so I know of
Speaker 2: somebody who was affected by it. Yeah, and advertising is
Speaker 2: what keeps is what keeps the media going?
Speaker 4: Yeah, for sure here it's I think it's the scale
Speaker 4: of their influence and powers is many magnitudes over what
Speaker 4: it must be like in New Zealand.
Speaker 3: But but the.
Speaker 4: Thing is they don't necessarily just need to control the media.
Speaker 4: And this is are now going from Old Pier to
Speaker 4: New Pier. It's not just the media, it's the journals.
Speaker 3: It's the medical journals themselves.
Speaker 4: And I think the foundation for all of the fraud
Speaker 4: in COVID, especially against early repurpose drugs like hydroxy coroquin
Speaker 4: and ivermactin, it begins at the level of the high
Speaker 4: impact medical journals. They're the ones that allowed the publication
Speaker 4: of manipulated, fraudulent trials attacking those drugs. Once you have
Speaker 4: those journals, those manuscripts published in those major journals, that's
Speaker 4: the foundation for everything else that happens, because you don't
Speaker 4: need the media at that point. Now that supports the
Speaker 4: health agencies. So the health agency, look, we're looking at
Speaker 4: the best science, the British Medical Journal, you know, the
Speaker 4: New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American
Speaker 4: Medical Association. They say, hydroxychlorcon doesn't work, ivermactin doesn't work.
Speaker 3: And so I was watching this.
Speaker 4: Global fraud with millions dying because they weren't having access
Speaker 4: to early treat and drugs. And so when you ask
Speaker 4: me first how that felt when I read the disinformation playbook,
Speaker 4: as I after I learned Decision Lead, and it started
Speaker 4: to see what the consequences of this massive disinformation was
Speaker 4: and how much destruction they achieved and the humanitarian catastrophe
Speaker 4: that unfolded, which is needless deaths worldwide. And then I'm
Speaker 4: going to have to bring in another difficult topic. That
Speaker 4: same disinformation campaign against early treatment DOUGS was employed to
Speaker 4: prop up the most toxic and lethal intervention in the
Speaker 4: history of medicine, which is these mRNA vaccines. I don't
Speaker 4: want to detract from the ironmatin thing, but I have
Speaker 4: to tell you I watched that same campaign prop up
Speaker 4: the vaccines, and so it was like a double whammy.
Speaker 4: And all I want to say laden is COVID would
Speaker 4: have been over early on, or it would not have
Speaker 4: been this major worldwide catastrophe that it was had science
Speaker 4: not been so controlled, corrupted and manipulated to make billions
Speaker 4: of dollars. I mean, look at the billions they made
Speaker 4: off of vaccines rem dec of the I don't know
Speaker 4: if they use reum descritate in New Zealand most of
Speaker 4: the world. They did here they did, even despite the
Speaker 4: WHO saying it didn't work, which was really bizarre to me.
Speaker 4: Like it's it's infused into every COVID patient's arm in
Speaker 4: the United States, and it's a worthless drug. It has
Speaker 4: no logical sense for working. The data the shows that
Speaker 4: it works is manipulated, and so like I basically Layton,
Speaker 4: I based, you know, from from the comfortable world that
Speaker 4: I thought.
Speaker 3: We thought we were.
Speaker 4: Organized and respected and followed certain rules and medical ethics,
Speaker 4: and it was somewhat of an orderly world that I
Speaker 4: thought I lived in. Obviously with with evil and violence
Speaker 4: and all those things, but I thought the institutions were
Speaker 4: marshaled against that to it to you know, a few
Speaker 4: years into COVID, I realized I lived in a dystopian
Speaker 4: world where the institutions on their face look like they're
Speaker 4: doing the right thing. Behind the scenes, they were basically
Speaker 4: creating actions and policies that were directly harmful to not
Speaker 4: only my country's citizenry, but countries around the world. And
Speaker 4: I would say the western and most media saturated in advance,
Speaker 4: like the advanced health economies of the.
Speaker 3: World, they did the worst.
Speaker 4: They were the most manipulated and also the most profitable.
Speaker 4: And so it basically I realized I lived in a
Speaker 4: different world than I thought I lived in.
Speaker 2: Now would be a good time, I think, to introduce
Speaker 2: the tourist who was well over wait and came into
Speaker 2: your hospital. Yeah, and you took care of him. Yeah,
Speaker 2: just tell us the detail.
Speaker 4: Now, are you referring to the patient who I discovered
Speaker 4: was fully vaccinated?
Speaker 2: This was a guy who was I con't remember it.
Speaker 2: This is the guy who was was why I were white.
Speaker 2: He was a tourist.
Speaker 4: Oh, so that was around ivermactin that so that wasn't
Speaker 4: my page. I'm not sure, because there's there's a couple
Speaker 4: of instances of positions that I used to begin some
Speaker 4: topics in my book.
Speaker 3: But was that It may have been because.
Speaker 2: I think because I'm pretty I'm pretty sure now that
Speaker 2: he actually mentioned in our discussion.
Speaker 3: But this was around Ivermactin.
Speaker 4: Yes, yeah, So, so the instance that I use is
Speaker 4: that in my research on Ivermactin, not only did we
Speaker 4: start seeing all these trials, but I realized that the
Speaker 4: first paper that showed the incredible evidence of kfcy of
Speaker 4: Ivermactin was actually a case series from the Dominican Republic
Speaker 4: which was posted on a preprint server in June of
Speaker 4: twenty twenty. That that goes back to the statement I
Speaker 4: just made too late, and is that COVID would have
Speaker 4: never been an issue if we were like objective, reasonable,
Speaker 4: pragmatic and looking at all evidence equally. But what happened
Speaker 4: in the Dominican Republic is in March of twenty twenty.
Speaker 4: Remember March of twenty twenty. This is when COVID was
Speaker 4: just beginning. There's this really So what happened is the
Speaker 4: lead author of that case series, which had immense difficulty
Speaker 4: getting published, which is another thing I don't want to
Speaker 4: go backwards into corruption. But not only were the journals
Speaker 4: publishing manipulated trials with pre determined results, they were.
Speaker 3: Rejecting and retracting any.
Speaker 4: Science which advanced or support of alternative cheap therapies. And
Speaker 4: so the first time they posted their paper was in
Speaker 4: June of twenty twenty. I think it took them a
Speaker 4: year to publish it in like some tertiary journal. But
Speaker 4: I ended up becoming in contact with the lead author,
Speaker 4: and I even know when I was in Dominican Republic.
Speaker 3: Is that's the place that I would go vacation.
Speaker 4: I got to meet up with him and we had
Speaker 4: drinks one night and he told me this the origin
Speaker 4: story of his discovery of ivermactin in COVID, and that
Speaker 4: was in March of twenty twenty. He said that he
Speaker 4: owned a series of clinics in the Minia Republic and
Speaker 4: he got a call one night from a doctor who
Speaker 4: was on call and had just admitted some overweight I
Speaker 4: think it was an American tourist who was hypoxic on oxygen,
Speaker 4: not looking good.
Speaker 3: Was that the story?
Speaker 4: Yeah, but this is like the origin story, and so
Speaker 4: he you know, the doctor calls and says, hey, you know,
Speaker 4: this guy's looking really bad.
Speaker 3: He's like, what do you think we should do?
Speaker 4: And the doctor apparently had researched or known about ivermactin
Speaker 4: as an anti viral, and so he asked his essential
Speaker 4: boss for permission to treat the guy with ivermactin. And
Speaker 4: so doctor Radondo, who is my colleague who I was
Speaker 4: talking to at this time. Doctor Dondo, in his account
Speaker 4: he said, you know what, I convened our committee, you know,
Speaker 4: because they, you know, his clinics had one, like a
Speaker 4: therapeutic committee. He said, I consulted them and we discussed
Speaker 4: the case, and we understood the gravity of this patient.
Speaker 4: And I called the doctor back who was on call,
Speaker 4: and I said, you have we're giving you permission to
Speaker 4: treat him with ivermectin, and the doctor replied, thanks, I
Speaker 4: gave it to him an hour ago, which I always loved,
Speaker 4: so the doctor of vision. But the point of that
Speaker 4: story was the guy rapidly improved overnight, and I think
Speaker 4: he got discharged the next day off oxygen.
Speaker 3: So it was like this dramatic response.
Speaker 4: And so after that first patient, they quickly developed a protocol.
Speaker 4: They treated everyone in their urgent cares and emergency rooms
Speaker 4: with avermeactin. They did this for months, and then in
Speaker 4: June twenty twenty they reported on thirty three hundred patients
Speaker 4: treated with iver maactin on arrival to any of their facilities,
Speaker 4: and out of the thirty three hundred patients, they had
Speaker 4: sixteen hospitalizations and two deaths.
Speaker 3: Two deaths out.
Speaker 4: Of thirty three hundred patients arriving at an urgency at
Speaker 4: urgent cares and emergency.
Speaker 3: Rooms, which is a dramatic result.
Speaker 4: And anyway, that's where that adnecdote came from. But the
Speaker 4: point of that story is, like that paper showed up
Speaker 4: on a preprint server of June to twenty twenty. There's
Speaker 4: no advanced health economy in the world that was monitoring
Speaker 4: preprints looking for data that possibly showed early evidence of
Speaker 4: the efficacy. So even if they were interested, they could
Speaker 4: have done an immediate trial, whatever evidence based medicine standards
Speaker 4: they wanted to do, they could have done that, but
Speaker 4: there was no efforts of doing that. There was no
Speaker 4: efforts at looking at available repurpose drugs. Everything was about
Speaker 4: testing pricey patented pharmaceuticals. And so I knew the whole
Speaker 4: gig was up. I mean, eventually I figured it out,
Speaker 4: like repurpose drugs are the Achilles heel. And you know
Speaker 4: what I mean my repurpose right, it's off patent drugs
Speaker 4: or drugs that have been proved for one indication that
Speaker 4: you find now that's really effective in another.
Speaker 3: Whereas Farmer doesn't like that.
Speaker 4: With every disease, they want to come up with new
Speaker 4: stuff that's on patent that is immensely profitable. So they
Speaker 4: do not like off patent repurpose drugs being used to
Speaker 4: treat anything because there's no money in it, which is
Speaker 4: actually false. There is money you could make a profit,
Speaker 4: you just can't make absurd obscene profits that that industry
Speaker 4: is used to. That industry is a criminal syndicate. That's
Speaker 4: also the other thing I've learned in these five years
Speaker 4: is I've studied the pharmacuit industry. I've looked at their
Speaker 4: history of criminal finds, civil finds. They operate with impunity.
Speaker 4: They are constantly being sued and found guilty for the
Speaker 4: most nefarious actions in the world, and yet again people
Speaker 4: seem unaware of that.
Speaker 2: Is it that they don't want to know? Is is
Speaker 2: it that that I want to believe that, I want
Speaker 2: to that, I want to steer themselves off. Course.
Speaker 4: No, No, it's much cruder and coarser and simpler than that,
Speaker 4: and it's much more base than that. They know, they
Speaker 4: absolutely know they are an industry that works for their shareholders,
Speaker 4: not for their patients. They see this as a business marketplace.
Speaker 4: They see competitive threats and they destroy them. Iver Mactin
Speaker 4: was a competitor to all of their products, and it
Speaker 4: got destroyed and they used all the powers that they
Speaker 4: could marshal. Hydroxychloroquin the same, and there's also a lot
Speaker 4: of others, but those were the two most prominent, and
Speaker 4: those are the two that they most deployed their resources
Speaker 4: and attacking.
Speaker 2: What's the I'm trying to think of the name of
Speaker 2: the of the surgeon in Newcastle Hospital in Australia, who's
Speaker 2: who's been mettling this. There are medicos in this part
Speaker 2: of the world, Australasia who have who have made stands.
Speaker 2: And another one I interviewed right at the very beginning
Speaker 2: of all this, and he was so onto it, so well,
Speaker 2: not just convincing, but he was so backed up by
Speaker 2: what he knew and how he knew it that I
Speaker 2: undertook an attempt to introduce him to some well shure,
Speaker 2: we say political people here. No nobody wanted to know. No,
Speaker 2: not interested, not interested. Now but when you but when
Speaker 2: you when you understand, of course, the nature of the
Speaker 2: people who were running the country at that time, starting
Speaker 2: with the top of the beehive, which is where the
Speaker 2: government is the queen bee. If you want, you understand
Speaker 2: why they didn't want to know.
Speaker 4: They all obey. And this is might be trait might
Speaker 4: be a little bit too explosive, but they all obey.
Speaker 4: What I discover is that you know, well, I always
Speaker 4: knew that humans, we are creatures of incentives. We all
Speaker 4: respond to incentives, whether they'd be positive or negative. And
Speaker 4: what I came to find out is that everyone seems
Speaker 4: to work for their masters. Because the one central thing
Speaker 4: that I took away, which is the most disappointing with
Speaker 4: what I learned about humanity and COVID.
Speaker 3: Is that the desire to remaine employed is paramount.
Speaker 4: People will not blow up their careers over ethical.
Speaker 3: Or moral objections even though they know harm.
Speaker 4: Is being caused. You did they protect themselves? Well, here's
Speaker 4: the difference. I don't want to call myself a hero.
Speaker 3: Because really, I'll I'll do that for you.
Speaker 4: No, no, because I don't think it's correct.
Speaker 3: I was just early, so I was naive.
Speaker 4: If I knew what would befall me, I'd like to
Speaker 4: tell you I would have done the same thing. But
Speaker 4: it's different for doctors who came after me, because they
Speaker 4: saw what happened to me, and so they'd have to
Speaker 4: really willingly commit career suicide. Which is when I did
Speaker 4: what I was doing. I didn't think I would get
Speaker 4: career honors or you know, awards, But I didn't think
Speaker 4: what was going to happen to my life was going
Speaker 4: to happen. So I went in with naivete, not heroism.
Speaker 4: That's just my honest assessment. But even when after though,
Speaker 4: I will, I'll give myself credit for this, even when
Speaker 4: my life started going sideways because of that, and which
Speaker 4: shocked me because I'd always been celebrated in my field.
Speaker 3: By the way, I was very well.
Speaker 4: Hopefully this doesn't come across egotisto, but I was a
Speaker 4: very prominent physician in my own right. In my specialty,
Speaker 4: I was known as a global pioneer for a sub
Speaker 4: especially called critical care ulcure snography I'd written a textbook
Speaker 4: that was published in seven languages. I traveled the country
Speaker 4: and world teaching my specialty.
Speaker 2: By the way, don't forget that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, no, I was like really well known and well published,
Speaker 4: and you know, I've been recruited by a top research university.
Speaker 4: I was like their head clinician and critical care. I
Speaker 4: was a major clinical leader in that institution. So you know,
Speaker 4: the fall from Grace was pretty far and fast. But
Speaker 4: even as that fall began to happen, I wasn't going
Speaker 4: to change tactics. I was like, oh, you want to
Speaker 4: do this, I'm coming right back at you. And I thought,
Speaker 4: however I could, I had my nonprofit. I just kept
Speaker 4: putting out truths, putting out what I've always done, which
Speaker 4: is teaching what I know, researching what I don't know,
Speaker 4: and then disseminating that. And the more I did that,
Speaker 4: the more stuff happened to me. And look, Layton, you
Speaker 4: were just mentioning a prominent doctor. I guess that prominent
Speaker 4: doctor was also trying to speak truth. Did they get punished?
Speaker 2: To be honest, I can't answer that. He is still
Speaker 2: in his position.
Speaker 4: Okay, But if he was advocating for things that went
Speaker 4: that was dissenting with this, and I'm using air quotes here.
Speaker 3: Consensus that was the other thing.
Speaker 4: I realized that scientific consensus, whether it be in medicine
Speaker 4: or in climate or anything, is a manufactured consensus. You
Speaker 4: cannot reach consensus without deep influence of economic interests, because
Speaker 4: if you come up with a consensus that is scientifically
Speaker 4: inconvenient to the prevailing economic interest, they will make sure
Speaker 4: that doesn't happen. And so now I'm talking a little
Speaker 4: bit outside of medicine, but certainly in medicine. I realized
Speaker 4: that the guidelines that I'd followed for treatment of diseases,
Speaker 4: for everything in medicine is that they're largely controlled and manufactured.
Speaker 3: And so.
Speaker 4: Maybe demoralization is a strong word, maybe it's not, but
Speaker 4: I will say this, I'm I'm a physician, a strained
Speaker 4: estranged from allopathic medicine. I will say I got excommunicated.
Speaker 4: Luckily I'm still in practice. I'm in private practice. I'm
Speaker 4: a fee based I don't take insurance. The sadness of
Speaker 4: that is not everyone can see me or afford to
Speaker 4: see me. But the beauty in that is I get
Speaker 4: to practice medicine as.
Speaker 3: I see fit. I can do whatever I want.
Speaker 4: I can employ different therapies, I can try whatever I
Speaker 4: want to help patients. And I've learned so much about medicine.
Speaker 4: I am so free and more inspired as a physician
Speaker 4: than I've ever been.
Speaker 3: And that's just me today.
Speaker 4: And so part of what I just told you is
Speaker 4: that fall from Grace was really turbulent and difficult. I
Speaker 4: lost income sources along the way. I have three children.
Speaker 4: By the way, we pay for college in this country,
Speaker 4: and it's really expensive. I have three daughters.
Speaker 3: That you know.
Speaker 4: Like when my income got cut off, I mean it
Speaker 4: was scary. I mean I have a house, I have
Speaker 4: a mortgage, I have all those things. But luckily, in
Speaker 4: my case, I landed on my feet. There's many other
Speaker 4: doctors who didn't have the profile or didn't recover the
Speaker 4: way I did, who've lost their licenses and livelihoods for
Speaker 4: doing things as simple as treating people with ivermactin based
Speaker 4: on the science and the rationale for it. And let
Speaker 4: me just go back to the Disinformation Playbook and those
Speaker 4: five five football plays.
Speaker 3: The football play called.
Speaker 4: The blitz, that's when the attackers go after the quarterback.
Speaker 4: The blitz in the Disinformation Playbook is when they go
Speaker 4: after researchers who are producing the science that's inconvenient. And
Speaker 4: that's why when I read that article that day, I
Speaker 4: realized that I'd been blitzed.
Speaker 3: Paul Merrick had been blitzed.
Speaker 4: And there's like decades of evidence of various scientists. When
Speaker 4: you come out with a contrarian opinion, you get blitzed.
Speaker 4: And I saw doctors all over the world, Canada, US,
Speaker 4: every and by the way, I have devoted immense amounts
Speaker 4: of time to defending them in their core cases, in
Speaker 4: their hearings with medical boards where they're trying to get
Speaker 4: their licenses, trying to argue for them, showing that the
Speaker 4: science supported everything they did. I will tell you it
Speaker 4: doesn't work. That's the other thing. They weaponized, not only
Speaker 4: the media, the journals, the agencies, but also the medical
Speaker 4: boards and so doctors with contrarian aprisonances, no matter how
Speaker 4: scientifically base it is, they will go after you. Keep
Speaker 4: it in keep in line, or you're gone. And that's
Speaker 4: the sadness because the persecution of me and my colleagues
Speaker 4: and what happened to our careers, I don't think it
Speaker 4: was meant to personally punish us. It was to make
Speaker 4: us an example because we were the most public and
Speaker 4: they wanted to take us down. And I think that's
Speaker 4: to send a message to any other doctor who wants
Speaker 4: to step out of line. And it worked, and it works. Yeah,
Speaker 4: you have com client doctors all over the world.
Speaker 2: Now, now it would be a good time to just
Speaker 2: change gears.
Speaker 3: Sure.
Speaker 2: The story of Andy Hill and the World Health Organization,
Speaker 2: Oh boy. I found this to be because I haven't
Speaker 2: read the entire book, and I've dipped in and out
Speaker 2: of what interested me, and I found this chapter to
Speaker 2: be the most fascinating.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 2: If you don't if you don't like that, you don't
Speaker 2: agree with me, then that's only because I haven't really
Speaker 2: read some of the others that Well.
Speaker 3: Here's the thing, here's the thing.
Speaker 4: I'm just going to go back to the Disinformation Playbook, right,
Speaker 4: So it's five plays each and every one of them
Speaker 4: are devastating and I and as you probably can tell,
Speaker 4: like my book is thematically structured around that article to
Speaker 4: called the Disinformation Playbook. Because when I got that email
Speaker 4: that day and I read that article, I realized that's
Speaker 4: what's going on in the world, and I said, I
Speaker 4: committed myself on that day to write a book as
Speaker 4: a case example of how disinformation campaigns are executed in practice.
Speaker 4: I wanted to do like a case study so that
Speaker 4: everyone in world could read it and that they would
Speaker 4: then be immune to this immense amount of propaganda and
Speaker 4: censorship which creates these things. And one of those tactics, right,
Speaker 4: we talked about the blitz. The fake is when they
Speaker 4: do these predetermined trials. They manipulate trials to have a
Speaker 4: certain result. But Andy Hill is the example I used
Speaker 4: for something called the diversion where they co opt officials
Speaker 4: and and and.
Speaker 3: Andy Hill was that example.
Speaker 4: So any Hill was the lead researcher for the WHO,
Speaker 4: and he was in charge of a team that was
Speaker 4: supposed to research all repurposed off patent drugs that could
Speaker 4: potentially be used in COVID. And when I discovered this
Speaker 4: a week after my ivermactin testimony the conference organized because
Speaker 4: we both presented the same conference, I said, who's this
Speaker 4: guy researching ivromatic? Because he had more data than I had,
Speaker 4: and he had better data than I had, and so
Speaker 4: I reached out to him, and he and I quickly
Speaker 4: became collegial.
Speaker 3: He was a really nice guy. We were both invested.
Speaker 4: We were both really impressed with the data around ivermactin,
Speaker 4: and I remained in contact with him for months and
Speaker 4: he was very supportive. The problem was the more supportive
Speaker 4: he got. He gave a talk in South Africa on
Speaker 4: Zoom one day, and he was like basically telling the world,
Speaker 4: get ready, get your supplies of ivermectin together, and you
Speaker 4: know this is going to be the treatment.
Speaker 3: For early COVID.
Speaker 4: The day he gave that lecture, two days later, he
Speaker 4: told me that his sponsors at the WHO told him
Speaker 4: he's not allowed to speak publicly anymore. And after that
Speaker 4: day his behaviors started to get very strange.
Speaker 3: It was not the same guy I knew he ended up.
Speaker 4: He ended up posting a draft of his paper which
Speaker 4: reviewed all of the trials, and there was so much
Speaker 4: nonsense in it that didn't match the discussions we'd had
Speaker 4: or our own interprets of the data that me and
Speaker 4: Paul we told him, We said, we think you're doing
Speaker 4: scientific his conduct.
Speaker 3: We don't know why. We peer reviewed his paper.
Speaker 4: We suggested the additions that he should make to make
Speaker 4: it more correct.
Speaker 3: He ignored it.
Speaker 4: He left it up on a preprint server and then
Speaker 4: he went even f and he just basically he stopped.
Speaker 3: Sharing data, started doing all these things.
Speaker 4: And then Tess Lowry from the UK was another colleague
Speaker 4: of mine, caught him on a zoom and basically attacked
Speaker 4: him for the same thing. What are you doing, any
Speaker 4: Why are you writing these things when it doesn't match
Speaker 4: the data that we have, And he basically admitted that
Speaker 4: he was under pressure from his sponsors, and basically so
Speaker 4: he got co opted because he's he's a research who
Speaker 4: has long worked for international healthcare agency. His whole livelihood
Speaker 4: is getting grants to do research, and whoever was funding
Speaker 4: him did not like what he was finding and they
Speaker 4: wanted him to shut up. And that's kind of the
Speaker 4: main point of that that story with Any. And I
Speaker 4: stopped talking to him because well, he also stopped talking
Speaker 4: to me because I realized he got captured.
Speaker 2: That was one of the aspects of the book I found.
Speaker 2: You're reading away happily and all of a sudden, your
Speaker 2: attention gets stolen from you by something like this, this
Speaker 2: video that that doctor Tess Laurie Yeah produced And so
Speaker 2: I went off and found it. It wasn't easy because
Speaker 2: it wasn't where it was supposed to be, but I
Speaker 2: dug it out and it wasn't that long. I think
Speaker 2: it was twenty minutes, maybe.
Speaker 3: Ed.
Speaker 2: It was fascinating watching this fella squirm, squirm, that's what
Speaker 2: he was. He was squirming, squirming. He looked so uncomfortable,
Speaker 2: He looked so uncovering. Although he tried to defend himself
Speaker 2: in words, his body and his you know, movements and
Speaker 2: facial expression did not lie.
Speaker 4: He and Tess was fierce. I mean, Test showed who
Speaker 4: she was in that conversation. I mean, he was somewhat
Speaker 4: of a colleague, we'd gotten to know him a little bit.
Speaker 4: But she was unremitting. I mean she just really said,
Speaker 4: what are you doing? I mean, there's fifteen thousand people
Speaker 4: dying a day in the world and you're putting out
Speaker 4: this you know, you're changing the science around ivermectin and how.
Speaker 3: You present it, Like how can you sleep at night?
Speaker 3: Is what she said to him.
Speaker 2: So after that, after she did that, and you haven't
Speaker 2: spoken to him, what eventuated?
Speaker 3: Well, actually after she did that.
Speaker 4: She never showed me the video at the time, but
Speaker 4: she broke off all relationships.
Speaker 3: With any before I did.
Speaker 4: I continue to have relationship with him because I was
Speaker 4: trying to do good cop while she was bad cop,
Speaker 4: because he was feeding me data that I thought was
Speaker 4: really important, because you know what his job was to
Speaker 4: search all of the clinical trial registries in the world,
Speaker 4: identify all of the randomized control trials on any particular medicine.
Speaker 4: And by the time he got to ivermectin, they'd already
Speaker 4: researched hydroxtic cork and all these other things, and so
Speaker 4: he had knowledge, and he was in contact and communication
Speaker 4: with investigators with ongoing trials, and he was like, letting
Speaker 4: me know at some of this data show, which is
Speaker 4: by the way, not really scientifically rigorous. You shouldn't be
Speaker 4: sharing data of ongoing trials, but he was getting early
Speaker 4: reports of either trial results or ongoing data, and so
Speaker 4: I thought it was a productive relationship for me because
Speaker 4: I was just putting stuff out there around ivermactin.
Speaker 3: But eventually, I can't remember how our.
Speaker 4: Relationship ended, but he ended his contract with WHO. Then
Speaker 4: he published a wickedly positive meta analysis which departed from
Speaker 4: his work with WHO, because when he presented his data,
Speaker 4: Who the WHO did not recommend ivermactin.
Speaker 3: And that's a whole other scandal.
Speaker 4: What they did with the ivernmatin recommendation because the data
Speaker 4: that he presented them overwhelmingly supported the use of iromactin,
Speaker 4: But they ended up throwing out tens of trials that
Speaker 4: he had a mass that met their protocol for include usion.
Speaker 4: They threw them out saying, oh, this is what's wrong
Speaker 4: with this one and that one. And even after throwing
Speaker 4: everything out, they found an eighty two percent reduction immortality.
Speaker 4: But then the WHO labeled it as low quality evidence.
Speaker 4: And as a result, because it's such low quality, they said,
Speaker 4: most people in the world would not want to be
Speaker 4: treated with something based on low quality evidence outside of
Speaker 4: a clinical trial. And so the WHO is official recommendation
Speaker 4: from March of twenty twenty one which do not use
Speaker 4: outside of a clinical trial. And if you read the
Speaker 4: wording of that recommendation, it there's nothing more that infuriates
Speaker 4: me to this day than reading that document because they
Speaker 4: basically say, there's a paragraph in that document wich I
Speaker 4: think is really important that this world be aware of.
Speaker 4: It goes as follows. The Clinical Development Guidelines Group has
Speaker 4: found that although the data is in support of ivermectin use,
Speaker 4: it is of such low certainty that most well informed
Speaker 4: citizens of the world would not want to be treated
Speaker 4: with it outside of a trial. And Layton, can I
Speaker 4: just give you my interpretation of that sentence. That means
Speaker 4: in the real world sense, I'm picturing myself as a
Speaker 4: patient ill with COVID in a hospital room on six
Speaker 4: leaders of nasal flow canula oxygen, breathing at thirty times
Speaker 4: a minute, feeling terrible, and I'm declining, and a doctor
Speaker 4: comes into my room and says to me, doctor Corey,
Speaker 4: there's this medicine.
Speaker 3: It's one of the safest.
Speaker 4: Medicines in history, and based on the best available evidence,
Speaker 4: it shows that your chance of dying will be reduced
Speaker 4: by eighty two percent, because that's also in their documents,
Speaker 4: statistically significant eighty two percent reduction immortality if you use
Speaker 4: ivermathin So let's say this imaginary doctor would tell me that,
Speaker 4: and then he would say, but the evidence is it's
Speaker 4: low certainty.
Speaker 3: Would you like to be treated with it?
Speaker 4: So that means that most well informed citizens would respond,
Speaker 4: you know, because the evidence is of such low certainty, doctor,
Speaker 4: I'm not comfortably being treated outside of a clinical trial.
Speaker 4: Did you understand the absurdity of what we're talking about? Yep,
Speaker 4: that's literally the world we live in. So when we
Speaker 4: go back to the old pier to new pier, like,
Speaker 4: I'm watching an organization that's supposed toly shepherd the public
Speaker 4: health of the citizens of the world use this brazenly clownish, absurd, illogical, impractical,
Speaker 4: and inhuman reasoning for one reason only to not recommend ifromactin.
Speaker 4: And why don't they want to do that because of
Speaker 4: the people who control the WHO. It's controlled by Big
Speaker 4: Pharma and Bill Gates, who has immense interest in Big Pharma.
Speaker 4: So of course the WHO it's not a public health organization,
Speaker 4: it's it's literally run by the pharmaceutical industry, and so
Speaker 4: of course they not going to promote a repurposed drug.
Speaker 4: But the contortions and the clownishness that they had to
Speaker 4: go to in order to avoid doing that is so disturbing.
Speaker 2: Is so disturbing strong enough.
Speaker 4: No I could I probably I'm a New Yorker, so
Speaker 4: I then probably go into curse words.
Speaker 3: But it's funny though. Actually I love how you just
Speaker 3: asked that. Ladies.
Speaker 4: You know why because when I talk about these topics,
Speaker 4: I sometimes use the phrase I've run out of descriptors,
Speaker 4: Like I don't know how to describe this stuff. Evil, inhumane, corrupt, absurd, brazen, clownish.
Speaker 4: I don't even know how to describe it. But it's dystopian,
Speaker 4: is the word that's frightening.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: By the way, the interview I did right back in
Speaker 2: the very early days of this and I said I
Speaker 2: couldn't think of his name, Thomas BARROTI.
Speaker 3: Oh, yeah, Tom Bardi, Sure, I know Tom.
Speaker 4: Yeah, And Tom Tom was I mean, he was on
Speaker 4: the hydroxychloroquin very early. He knew that one, Yes, he knew.
Speaker 4: I'vever met them words. And and here's the other point.
Speaker 4: He's another example like a Paul Marek less so a
Speaker 4: Pierre Corey, but a literally globally prominent physician who had
Speaker 4: reached the heights of medicine, celebrated beyond belief, one of
Speaker 4: the most highly published erudite you know, brilliant physicians who
Speaker 4: got taken down for his opinions in COVID because they
Speaker 4: were contrarian to the objective. It doesn't matter how how
Speaker 4: high you rise, they can take anyone down.
Speaker 2: I've got to turn this round on to you again. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you got taken down, but now you're now you're thriving. Yes,
Speaker 2: and you gave us, you gave us, you gave us
Speaker 2: part of an explanation for that. I think because you're
Speaker 2: independent and you can charge, and you apologize for people
Speaker 2: who can't see you. And I saw some thing on
Speaker 2: ONYX I think yesterday had said you charged twelve hundred
Speaker 2: thirteen hundred dollars or something and that was abusiful. People
Speaker 2: like comments without understanding what the.
Speaker 3: Can I talk about that for a second?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I got a lot.
Speaker 5: Because it's so It saddens me so much because people
Speaker 5: think that if I charged twelve hundred dollars that I'm
Speaker 5: getting the twelve hundred dollars.
Speaker 3: Like, people don't understand how businesses work.
Speaker 4: My practice has twenty five employees, We have teams of nurses.
Speaker 4: We do proactive follow up. Me and my partner have
Speaker 4: committed to being the best employers we can. We very
Speaker 4: early on, before we even financially we were barely financially solvent,
Speaker 4: we offered them health insurance. Now we offer them retirement
Speaker 4: plans where we match. Like, I do not make a
Speaker 4: lot of money from my practice, I really don't. But
Speaker 4: people look at the fee we charge and they think
Speaker 4: that I'm laughing all the way to the bank, or
Speaker 4: I'm retiring on a Hawaiian island. The economics of a
Speaker 4: medical practice that survives only on consultation is impossible to
Speaker 4: calculate because you have to understand how the medical system
Speaker 4: makes its money.
Speaker 3: They have massive profit.
Speaker 4: Centers that a practice where it's all our sweat and tears,
Speaker 4: like I spend immense amount of times with my patients.
Speaker 3: We don't have imaging centers.
Speaker 4: I don't have blood labs where I can charge dollars,
Speaker 4: and I don't have surgeons and procedures or imaging. You know,
Speaker 4: that's how the economics of healthcare works. And so it
Speaker 4: saddens me that people look at a fee that I
Speaker 4: charge and they think that I'm overcharging. To be honest,
Speaker 4: I know what other folks, and I don't want to
Speaker 4: call us alternative or integrative, but I will tell you
Speaker 4: we are the most reasonably priced that I've seen.
Speaker 1: I have.
Speaker 3: I know colleagues that I like and enjoy respect.
Speaker 4: They charge an immense amount of money for what they do,
Speaker 4: far far higher than what I do. We do pragmatic
Speaker 4: pricing and we deliver excellent care. And again, if this
Speaker 4: comes across as defensive, it's somewhat defenses, but it's also
Speaker 4: trying to explain to people that you don't understand that
Speaker 4: that fee is not like goes into my wallet by
Speaker 4: the time against my wallet, it's like a fifteenth of
Speaker 4: what that is. I bet you wish that is anyway, Yeah,
Speaker 4: I wish it did. But and you know I could.
Speaker 4: And here's the thing. I could probably charge fifteen thousand
Speaker 4: or I don't. I probably couldn't, but three thousand of
Speaker 4: consultation five thousand, I don't. We're just trying to make
Speaker 4: a decent salary while delivering excellent care of supporting our employees.
Speaker 3: That's all we are. Are just a normal business.
Speaker 2: Let's go back to public health officials. You'd be familiar
Speaker 2: with Ashley Bluefield.
Speaker 4: Heard the name that's in New Zealand, right, Yes, yeah,
Speaker 4: I'm You're all the same. By the way, I don't
Speaker 4: need to know their names.
Speaker 2: Okay, but Ashley bloom well, Ashley Bloomfield.
Speaker 3: Maybe unless unless you're telling me this one stood out. Okay,
Speaker 3: Well he did.
Speaker 2: He stood out because because he don't know, because he
Speaker 2: dumped on Ivermecton and.
Speaker 3: Standing out leading Hold on, let me check you on that.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no, no, we're not No, we're not there yet.
Speaker 2: I haven't finished.
Speaker 3: Okay, good.
Speaker 2: He dumped on Ivermecton and kept dumping on Ivermecton and
Speaker 2: that really pissed off a fairly large number of people
Speaker 2: in this country. The sad admit is that he got
Speaker 2: a knighthood at the end of this, and the Prime
Speaker 2: Minister got a damehood. And and I've asked this question
Speaker 2: of other people on vodcast on podcasts, and I'm going
Speaker 2: to ask you. I wasn't going to actually because I've
Speaker 2: asked it enough, but I'm going to ask you, would
Speaker 2: you support a move and I'm not, but would you
Speaker 2: support a move to remove those honors, so called honors
Speaker 2: from people who did such damage to their country?
Speaker 3: Of course I would, of course I would.
Speaker 4: That that goes back to my adjectives of clown world,
Speaker 4: bizarro world. I mean, people are celebrated for participating in
Speaker 4: a humanitarian catastrophe. They're getting awards and united and damed.
Speaker 4: I mean that, what world are we living in?
Speaker 3: And you know, you know what? You know what this
Speaker 3: triggers in my mind, Laydon, is that what what COVID was.
Speaker 4: I mean, there's a lot of things, but Ultimately, in
Speaker 4: my mind, it was a war of information, and those
Speaker 4: that control the information sources and the dissemination of information,
Speaker 4: they disseminated consistently corrupted information in the forms of propaganda,
Speaker 4: and then they censored helpful, life saving information.
Speaker 3: It caused the humanitarian catastrophe.
Speaker 4: And and so to celebrate those that were practitioners of
Speaker 4: it is.
Speaker 3: It saddening?
Speaker 4: Is one word? Again, I got to break down my fassaurs. Yes,
Speaker 4: but it's absurd, absurd, absurd.
Speaker 2: Okay, but that's not the end of Ashley Bloomfield. He's
Speaker 2: now with the He's now with the w Y Show,
Speaker 2: and and the w A Show is trying to corral
Speaker 2: the world with regards as you would be well aware
Speaker 2: with regard to their plan for the future. And and
Speaker 2: the question that I have asked others before as well
Speaker 2: is should New Zealand join up because they're going FI.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 4: The more you centralize power and control, the more not
Speaker 4: not the more susceptible it is to being captured. Because
Speaker 4: they can capture diverse entities across the world, but the
Speaker 4: the more you see power into a centralized.
Speaker 3: Entity that is demonstrably captured.
Speaker 4: There's been documentation for twenty years of how the WHO
Speaker 4: of old, which is I would say last century, has
Speaker 4: been transformed. It literally works in the service of big Pharma.
Speaker 4: So any country that doubles that joints the WHO is
Speaker 4: basically seeding their sovereignty and their authority to corporate interests,
Speaker 4: which is antithetical to the purpose of government. Why would
Speaker 4: a government seat itself to a profit making corporation. I mean,
Speaker 4: to go into gates would be another hour, but he's
Speaker 4: on record showing that, like the eighteen billion that he
Speaker 4: learned that he earned in the pandemic through his investments
Speaker 4: into all the things that they mandated. So I just
Speaker 4: don't understand why I see the world in a certain
Speaker 4: way and so few others don't.
Speaker 3: Actually, I shouldn't say that I don't understand.
Speaker 4: I do understand because people have been sickened with immense
Speaker 4: propaganda from every sphere three hundred and sixty degrees.
Speaker 3: And can we talk.
Speaker 4: About propaganda for a second late, because the definition that
Speaker 4: I've been most moved by for what propaganda is, it's
Speaker 4: actually from a colleague patient of mine. He's a world
Speaker 4: expert in propaganda. His name is Professor Mark Crispin Miller.
Speaker 4: From New York University. And his definition is that propaganda
Speaker 4: is a story or a message to get.
Speaker 3: You to think or act in a certain way.
Speaker 4: And when I first heard that definition, I'd already been
Speaker 4: deeply studied on disinformation. I'd already seen a world act
Speaker 4: so bizarrely against their own interests. I saw people lining
Speaker 4: up for these toxic vaccines. I saw examples of like
Speaker 4: someone pass out in centers after getting a vaccine, and
Speaker 4: yet the line didn't disperse.
Speaker 3: People kept showing up for more vaccines. And so the
Speaker 3: story or message to get you.
Speaker 4: Think or act in a certain way, the world just
Speaker 4: has no idea that they're being propagated. They're being manipulated
Speaker 4: with information to get them to think correct in certain ways,
Speaker 4: and their actions are oftentimes directly opposed to their interests
Speaker 4: as a human, to their well being and their safety.
Speaker 4: And they don't know this. They don't know they're being manipulated.
Speaker 4: And I don't know how to communicate that.
Speaker 3: To the world.
Speaker 4: But I really my main message is very trite, right
Speaker 4: because other people like Trump and other people are saying,
Speaker 4: like turn off your televisions, turn off your radios, employ
Speaker 4: critical thinking. You know, understand what is behind those information sources.
Speaker 4: What are the financial interests that are driving that information
Speaker 4: towards you?
Speaker 3: I mean, I just wish.
Speaker 4: The world would just somehow be able to identify and
Speaker 4: listen to independent, unconflicted researchers, doctors, media, folks, you.
Speaker 3: Know, folks like you. I'm sure you don't take pharmal money, Laton.
Speaker 2: They never offered.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what was gonna say.
Speaker 2: But they wouldn't. They wouldn't.
Speaker 3: You wouldn't have me on if that was the case.
Speaker 2: They wouldn't. They wouldn't get it. So Professor Mark Crispin Miller,
Speaker 2: and what's his what's his specialty?
Speaker 4: So he was a professor of propaganda at New York
Speaker 4: University and he.
Speaker 2: Saw all of this, so hang on. So he's a
Speaker 2: professor of propaganda, not to propagate propaganda, but to to educate.
Speaker 4: The history, ramifications, consequences, presence of propaganda in society. I mean,
Speaker 4: he's that that's been his life's work because and I
Speaker 4: think it's as probably one of the most important topics
Speaker 4: in the world today.
Speaker 3: It doesn't get discussed.
Speaker 4: But remember propaganda has started back in the nineteen twenties
Speaker 4: with Barnet's and the Germans used it, and everyone seems
Speaker 4: to identify propaganda with like the Soviet Union.
Speaker 3: North Korea, Germany. And you know, one of the.
Speaker 4: Really funny anecdotes that really has stayed with me today
Speaker 4: is that I was talking to a friend of mine
Speaker 4: who is German, and he said, you know, back, you know,
Speaker 4: before the Berlin Wall fell.
Speaker 3: He said, the East.
Speaker 4: Germans, they didn't listen to the television. They knew that
Speaker 4: it was the state line to them. They were well
Speaker 4: aware that you don't trust the television, you don't trust
Speaker 4: the media.
Speaker 3: They laughed at that stuff.
Speaker 4: Whereas I live in a country in the United States
Speaker 4: where people turn on their televisions and radio stations and
Speaker 4: read their newspapers.
Speaker 3: They have no idea what's behind them.
Speaker 4: They think that these are well meaning journalists with integrity,
Speaker 4: who've done investment negations and have determined accuracy using facts
Speaker 4: and conclusions.
Speaker 3: That is not true.
Speaker 4: If it's printed in the papers, it's because someone allowed
Speaker 4: it to be printed.
Speaker 3: You know, you can't.
Speaker 4: Print anything that's inconvenient to the powers that be.
Speaker 2: Something you just said was a trigger, and I was
Speaker 2: about to launch into the fact that education is a
Speaker 2: failure on a number of fronts. It's a failure here,
Speaker 2: it's a failure practically everywhere. But my mind was cast
Speaker 2: back to when I was still in still in school,
Speaker 2: young young, I suggest even sort of the end of
Speaker 2: primary school and certainly early high school. And this was
Speaker 2: analyzing stories from the paper in class and deconstructing them
Speaker 2: and working out you know what, It wasn't propaganda. It
Speaker 2: was how to find propaganda, if you like. I don't
Speaker 2: know that I ever realized that, but it was to
Speaker 2: basically find the true path about about all sorts of things.
Speaker 2: I don't I don't think it lasted that long as
Speaker 2: a subject, but I don't believe it happens.
Speaker 3: At all now.
Speaker 2: No, No, you don't learn to think, certainly don't learn
Speaker 2: to think critically as a kid, and it's easy to
Speaker 2: brainwash you under those circumstances.
Speaker 4: I totally agree. You know, I want to inject something positive.
Speaker 4: Why Why because because let's go back to how we
Speaker 4: started leading. You asked me about old Pierre and new Pierre.
Speaker 4: You know what happened to me is literally my perception,
Speaker 4: my awareness of reality and society and what's really going
Speaker 4: on truly expanded. I'm not going to claim I know everything.
Speaker 4: I do know I know a lot more of the
Speaker 4: world than I did. But the positive point is and
Speaker 4: that's been positive for me. I really think the only
Speaker 4: way you can live is being as well informed as
Speaker 4: you can, and I think I was very poorly informed
Speaker 4: in my prior existence.
Speaker 3: But I'm not the only one. This has happened to
Speaker 3: a lot of people.
Speaker 4: You know. We use that phrase that they were woken
Speaker 4: up in COVID And I recently wrote a post. I
Speaker 4: have a substack that's pretty popular. I do a lot
Speaker 4: of writings on medical and medical adjacent topics, and I
Speaker 4: was doing a post on the trust in hospitals and
Speaker 4: physicians because there was a paper that got a lot
Speaker 4: of attention last July where Americans trust in hospitals and
Speaker 4: physicians from twenty nineteen to twenty twenty three or four
Speaker 4: plummeted from seventy one percent to forty percent. Americas are
Speaker 4: disgusted with the medical system and how they responded in
Speaker 4: all actions they took. And I also found data in
Speaker 4: the media. So there's this survey they've done about media
Speaker 4: for like, I think they had data going back twenty
Speaker 4: five years and they asked respondents to ask about their
Speaker 4: trust to media and there's three choices. It was lots
Speaker 4: of trust, some trust, and no trust at all.
Speaker 3: And for the first time.
Speaker 4: In history, last year the highest proportion were those that
Speaker 4: had no trust in all in media. I think it
Speaker 4: was like forty one percent, and then the other choices
Speaker 4: were something less. And so I think people are waking
Speaker 4: up to the fact that we live in a world
Speaker 4: of propaganda, and I think that's only good for the
Speaker 4: health of the world, for our sanity, for our actions,
Speaker 4: because if you don't trust and people who are lying
Speaker 4: to you, hopefully you can make decisions that are better
Speaker 4: for your.
Speaker 3: Welfare and your family's welfare.
Speaker 2: You know, you've distracted me from some of the directions
Speaker 2: I would have liked to have gone in, and we're
Speaker 2: going to conclude in a minute with one of those.
Speaker 2: But it's occurred to me that, let me put it
Speaker 2: this way, the book and I have a lot of books,
Speaker 2: the book is fascinating. It's fascinating for a multitude of reasons.
Speaker 2: First of all for its information and education. Secondly, because
Speaker 2: of the way it's written. And I found myself thinking,
Speaker 2: this is a scene out of a crime novel or
Speaker 2: some equivalent to that. It was like it was like
Speaker 2: you weren't really writing about yourself and the circumstances that
Speaker 2: you found yourself in. You were almost almost being fictitious
Speaker 2: about it and writing about somebody else. But it was
Speaker 2: that it's the book has written, your co author or
Speaker 2: whatever you call her, and you have done a superb job.
Speaker 3: I appreciate that.
Speaker 2: There are two things I really want to touch on.
Speaker 2: One is you made reference toward the end of the book.
Speaker 2: Here we are in the last two paragraphs of the
Speaker 2: vaccine Disinformation Campaign, Chapter forty. I am now estranged from
Speaker 2: not only those who practice medicine inside that system, but
Speaker 2: from science in general, at least as it's come to
Speaker 2: be known. I no longer know who and what to
Speaker 2: trust within the system, and have now chosen to believe
Speaker 2: nothing that cannot be confirmed by numerous objective data sources
Speaker 2: using an assessment of the totality of evidence, and not
Speaker 2: the curated, premeditated conclusions found in high impact medical journal studies.
Speaker 2: To say it is a sad state of affairs is
Speaker 2: the understatement of my life. To realize that this state
Speaker 2: of medical science has existed for decades is both humbling
Speaker 2: and terrifying. How many people have I hurt using medicines
Speaker 2: built on lies. In my career, my consolation is that
Speaker 2: oftentimes it takes great destruction to realize where weakness lies.
Speaker 2: After a natural disaster leaves a community in ruins, you
Speaker 2: can bet the rebuilt structures will be engineered to withstand
Speaker 2: the next one. At least I know what I'm dealing
Speaker 2: with now, because only good things can come from that knowledge.
Speaker 2: In one film depiction of Pearl Harbor, the attacks planner,
Speaker 2: Japanese Admiral Yavamoto declares, I fear all we have done
Speaker 2: is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with
Speaker 2: a terrible resolve. Yes, I am awake, and I am
Speaker 2: filled with a terrible, immense, galvanizing resolve. And I thought
Speaker 2: that there was a brilliant commentary.
Speaker 3: It is.
Speaker 2: It is, unfortunately not what contained what I was, what
Speaker 2: I was heading for, but it was worth it was
Speaker 2: worth inserting. You mentioned you mentioned climate Somewhere in that
Speaker 2: vicinity of what I read. You wrote that you don't
Speaker 2: believe things, et cetera. And you now don't know that
Speaker 2: you believe what they're saying about climate change. Basically, that's
Speaker 2: what you said. You haven't had time to study it,
Speaker 2: but you hope you will. Climate change was where I
Speaker 2: started at least twenty five years ago, and I've been
Speaker 2: I've been warring with the powers that ever since because
Speaker 2: it's a scam, just like just like so many other things.
Speaker 2: It's a real scam. And I've done multiple multiple interviews
Speaker 2: with people over the years on it. But climate is
Speaker 2: is not controlled by two?
Speaker 3: Can I say that?
Speaker 4: Since I wrote that book, which is already I don't know,
Speaker 4: maybe two three years ago, I haven't spent a lot
Speaker 4: of time in climate And I'll tell you why, because
Speaker 4: what makes an expert is pattern recognition. And all the
Speaker 4: hallmarks of the disinformation campaign around ivermectin are present with
Speaker 4: man made CO two causing global warming. Now, every single thumbprint,
Speaker 4: fingerprint of the disinformation against avernmactin is there with global
Speaker 4: warmer So I don't care. And I also saw a
Speaker 4: documentary which really kind of stirred me to my soul
Speaker 4: where and I can't remember what the documentary was called,
Speaker 4: but they interviewed lots of prominent climate scientists who described
Speaker 4: what happens to them when they try to present or
Speaker 4: write papers about their data showing that it's not about
Speaker 4: man made CO two.
Speaker 2: Well that was a British That was a British documentary. Eh.
Speaker 2: And there were two of them, and I don't know
Speaker 2: whether it was the first one or the second, because
Speaker 2: I think they felt it a similar similar pattern in BOS.
Speaker 2: But I more recently interviewed the director of that, the
Speaker 2: man who put it together. Yeah, and.
Speaker 4: No hearing them, they were they were basically describing what
Speaker 4: happened to my career. So like I identified their message
Speaker 4: resonated and I was like, you go fight that war.
Speaker 4: I'm fighting this war. But I realized that's a war
Speaker 4: of disinformation. This whole CO two thing is that, like
Speaker 4: you said, it's a scam, just like ivermectin is a
Speaker 4: horsety wormer.
Speaker 3: It's a scam.
Speaker 4: And and you know they lose grant funding, they can't
Speaker 4: do research. I mean, if you're doing inconvenient science to
Speaker 4: the narrative or to the consensus, your career drives up.
Speaker 4: So what you're left with are these fields of science
Speaker 4: which are Yeah, there's consens because they get rid of
Speaker 4: all the dissidents, they star of the dissonance to death
Speaker 4: or the excommunicate them, so all you get is parrot heads.
Speaker 2: Correct. Yes, And I was going to say that I
Speaker 2: recognize what you said about about the link between the two.
Speaker 2: The thing that intrigued me was I worked in reverse
Speaker 2: and climate change scamming trained me up for being very
Speaker 2: suspicious at the beginning and then developing it on everything
Speaker 2: to do with COVID nineteen yep. So on that note,
Speaker 2: I'm going to say that it's been one of the
Speaker 2: It's been an amazing how long hour and twenty minutes
Speaker 2: amazing And you're on holiday in Hawaii. You're going to
Speaker 2: play golf this afternoon. I know that, and I am
Speaker 2: so grateful for the time that you've and the energy
Speaker 2: that you were put into the time that we have
Speaker 2: been talking so much so that I'm going to put
Speaker 2: you on the spot and say, would you rejoin us
Speaker 2: because there are other things, you know, a few months
Speaker 2: down the track.
Speaker 3: Absolutely no, it's a pleasure. I'm happy to have joined
Speaker 3: you for sure.
Speaker 2: Anyway, listen, my thanks to your very patient wife. I
Speaker 2: hope that the golf goes well.
Speaker 3: It'll be good. It's beautiful weather here. Well, nice talking
Speaker 3: to man. Yeah, anytime reach out.
Speaker 2: Likewise, if you feel this value in it, absolutely thank you, Pierre.
Speaker 3: All right, lady, take care By.
Speaker 2: Missus producer the mail room for a podcast two hundred
Speaker 2: lady four, Hi Layson, did you hear me two eight four?
Speaker 3: I know, yeah, I heard.
Speaker 2: I thought perfect, okay, good? Was that good? In anticipation
Speaker 2: of my next question, how are you good?
Speaker 6: You've done two eight before? I can't believe it? And
Speaker 6: I am good? Thank you?
Speaker 2: Excellent?
Speaker 6: What a convoluted experience that was.
Speaker 2: Why don't you prove it?
Speaker 6: By Sir I Shall Allison says the recent podcast featuring
Speaker 6: Remish the Kur again is excellent. Wish we could hear
Speaker 6: him more often. His consistent wisdom, helpful worldview, and wide
Speaker 6: knowledge is needed to be heard by everyone. I wonder
Speaker 6: if the long march through the institutions and the ensuing
Speaker 6: success of that Marxist strategy would have turned out the
Speaker 6: same if such professors and lecturers as Ramesh had been
Speaker 6: appointed in most of the universities of the West. Could
Speaker 6: we have had a class of young with similar wisdom
Speaker 6: and common sense. At the end, you introduce us to
Speaker 6: Stephen the medical doctor and read us a tantalizing fragment
Speaker 6: of his letter necessary information not commonly known, superb. I
Speaker 6: wonder if he would not be open to being interviewed
Speaker 6: by you, protecting anonymity in the process latent, and she
Speaker 6: asks where is one able to read the full submission
Speaker 6: which he wrote.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure about that. I will chase it up.
Speaker 2: How's that I had to yesterday evening I had to
Speaker 2: explain to somebody who was roughly my age about the
Speaker 2: long march through the institutions. Never heard of it. I
Speaker 2: reckon that good eighty percent of the population hasn't interesting. Now,
Speaker 2: this is from a lawyer hoping you might care to
Speaker 2: analyze and dismember Simon Wilson's piece in this week's Herald
Speaker 2: on Trump's first one hundred I don't need to point
Speaker 2: out the inaccuracies and distortions to you, but were you
Speaker 2: to do so publicly, would be doing us all a
Speaker 2: great service. Secondly, just mentioning that's all that I have,
Speaker 2: I've had to make a firm decision not to listen
Speaker 2: any longer to Hoskin's American correspondent Richard Arnold's three days
Speaker 2: a week. Heaven help us. He's Australian, not American, and
Speaker 2: not sure who employs him. He's freelanced, by the way.
Speaker 2: Any reference to Trump, any references to Trump are slighting,
Speaker 2: snide and sneering. The illiteration is excusable. In describing this
Speaker 2: bigot bluntly, he's full of bs. Never credit for the
Speaker 2: border or attempts to end the Ukrainian disaster. Hosking seems
Speaker 2: to defer to him the latter's grasp of political realities.
Speaker 2: Also suspect. This morning, he predicted that Dutton is going
Speaker 2: to get thrashed because the polls indicate that he probably
Speaker 2: will lose. But not to the extent Hoskin should Hosking
Speaker 2: not to that extent. Hoskin should realize by now that
Speaker 2: the Aussie Poles are very slewed or should they be skewed?
Speaker 2: As of course, is their media just like ours? Sincerely,
Speaker 2: So I've got legal banking for that.
Speaker 3: He's a lawyer.
Speaker 2: Oh good, Yeah. Now the answer to your question, what
Speaker 2: I care to analyze and dismember Simon Wilson's piece? What
Speaker 2: Simon Wilson, hush.
Speaker 6: Layton leyden Jin says So far this year, two first
Speaker 6: world Western countries, Canada and Australia, have submitted themselves to
Speaker 6: the same leftist government administrations which nearly destroyed them. When
Speaker 6: Joe Rogan asked Jordan Peterson, who of course is a Canadian,
Speaker 6: on how Canada might correct her course given the reelection
Speaker 6: of the Trudeau two point zero government under Carney. Jordan responded, well,
Speaker 6: people either correct course by waking up or by experiencing
Speaker 6: severe pain. And it looks to me we've chosen the
Speaker 6: severe pain route, I guess, says Jen. Australians have also
Speaker 6: chosen the root of severe pain with the reelection of
Speaker 6: Albanesi's divisive and leftist Labor government. Australians will realize soon
Speaker 6: enough that they have just elected a government that will
Speaker 6: bring the full weight of the Progressive's war against themselves.
Speaker 6: So I just want to leave Australians with a powerful
Speaker 6: exhortation from Robert Menzi's Australia's twelfth Prime Minister, and in quotes,
Speaker 6: Robert Menzie says, what may be before us, we do
Speaker 6: not know nor how long the journey, but this we
Speaker 6: do know that truth is our companion on that journey,
Speaker 6: that truth is with us in the battle, and that
Speaker 6: truth must win. I know that in spite of the
Speaker 6: emotions we are all feeling, you will show that Australia
Speaker 6: is ready to see it through. May God, in his
Speaker 6: mercy and compassion, grant that the world may soon be
Speaker 6: delivered from this agony. And then Jin says, what is
Speaker 6: a speech that declared war against Nazi Germany in nineteen
Speaker 6: thirty nine got to do with the recent Australian election everything?
Speaker 6: As Nick Kata said, the Liberals have forgotten how to
Speaker 6: play politics. Dutton has lost as courage and Australia's freedom
Speaker 6: is at stake. The Liberal Party needs to gear up
Speaker 6: for war. Dutton or whoever replaces him, needs to rediscover
Speaker 6: their courage and battle with truth by their side. Perhaps
Speaker 6: Mensi's rousing words might help.
Speaker 2: I might cut that out and stick it on a
Speaker 2: war truth very good anyway, David, And this is the
Speaker 2: subject line I'm going to read the subject I never
Speaker 2: do that. Adirn rubbish the Bill of Rights in Act.
Speaker 2: In twenty twenty, Luxon wants to double down. Christopher Luckxlon
Speaker 2: now wants to promote MP Katherine Wedd's members bill seeking
Speaker 2: to ban social media access to children under sixteen years
Speaker 2: of age. I wrote to Katherine Wedd pointing out that
Speaker 2: such legislation would be in clear breach of Section fourteen
Speaker 2: of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which states
Speaker 2: everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the
Speaker 2: freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of
Speaker 2: any kind in any form. I have yet to receive
Speaker 2: a reply from Catherine wed but according to media reports,
Speaker 2: she denied her proposed legislation would breach the Bill of
Speaker 2: Rights Act. I guess since Adirn and her government got
Speaker 2: away with the totally ignoring the Bill of Rights Act
Speaker 2: during COVID, Luxen and his National Party in Peace believe
Speaker 2: they can do the same. Luxeon is attempting to validate
Speaker 2: this proposed legislation on the premise that it mimics the
Speaker 2: Australian Online Safety Act. I'm surprised that Australians didn't push
Speaker 2: back against such draconian legislation, given that it does not
Speaker 2: conform to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Speaker 2: Both Australia and New Zealand are signatories to this Convention,
Speaker 2: in which Article nineteen states everyone shall have the right
Speaker 2: to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to seek, receive,
Speaker 2: and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers,
Speaker 2: either orally, in writing or in print, or in the
Speaker 2: form of art, or through any other means of his
Speaker 2: choice close quote. Clearly Australian politicians have chosen to ignore
Speaker 2: an international convention which protected their citizens' civil rights, and
Speaker 2: that is no reason for MP Katherine wedd and Prime
Speaker 2: Minister Christopher Luxen to ignore the basic rights of New
Speaker 2: Zealanders as laid out but laid out in both the
Speaker 2: Convention and the Bill of Rights Act. No government should
Speaker 2: be mandating social media restrictions to children under sixteen. That
Speaker 2: responsibility surely rests solely with parents. David, I could discuss
Speaker 2: this for the next thirty minutes. I reckon because there
Speaker 2: are arguments on both sides. I mean, kids aren't allowed
Speaker 2: to do this, that and the other, you know, like
Speaker 2: drive underage and drink underage and all of those things.
Speaker 2: So I guess that's there for their own protection, and
Speaker 2: it is drinking underage and driving underage, then so might
Speaker 2: be what they're looking at online. That's that's my best
Speaker 2: shot at it.
Speaker 6: I think the big thing is, isn't it that despite
Speaker 6: your thoughts, one's thoughts about how it's a fantastic idea,
Speaker 6: how is it going to be managed and policed?
Speaker 2: Answer on the aforementioned breakfast Hosts program, I might add
Speaker 2: by the way that there's no question in my mind
Speaker 2: the best broadcaster in the country, but nobody's without their faults.
Speaker 2: That you don't know until you try something, And there
Speaker 2: was reference by to the Australian situation too.
Speaker 6: You know one hundred percent otherwise, and you know otherwise
Speaker 6: you'd have a very good reason to not try anything
Speaker 6: because it might fail. So what's the.
Speaker 2: Point on that, Well, I've been there once or twice.
Speaker 6: Well, the other thing is you and I have said before,
Speaker 6: Thank goodness, we have never brought children up, young children
Speaker 6: up in this environment because they would far rather sit
Speaker 6: on a phone than go outside and play with a ball.
Speaker 2: Helllujah that we didn't.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was going to say, what do you mean, right,
Speaker 3: you're done? Yes?
Speaker 2: Oh, now I've got two more and I'm going to
Speaker 2: I'm going to hold them over till next week because
Speaker 2: they both deserve a bit of time. So we'll put
Speaker 2: them on the side. Come back next week. So you've
Speaker 2: got a date, right, you're weird, See you next weekness,
Speaker 2: as producer, see you laden Now, I presume if you're
Speaker 2: still listening that it's because you're interested in this area,
Speaker 2: in this topic.
Speaker 3: So too.
Speaker 2: The commentary on the who's Draft Pandemic Agreement, co authored
Speaker 2: by David Bell, and it begins the first section background.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to read it all because it runs.
Speaker 2: I think it's some thirteen pages or not. Hang on
Speaker 2: seventeen pages. Will have the first page pretty much and
Speaker 2: that will do. And it begins with background. The Draft
Speaker 2: Pandemic Agreement the PA has been under development for three
Speaker 2: years by delegates of one hundred and ninety four member
Speaker 2: states of the World Health Organization, the Health Agency of
Speaker 2: the United Nations instituted after the Second World War. The
Speaker 2: WHO has been pushing to negotiate a Pandemic Treaty or
Speaker 2: accord to better prepare the world for pandemic preparedness, prevention,
Speaker 2: and response, in parallel with a new set of amendments
Speaker 2: to the two thousand and five National Health Regulations the IHR.
Speaker 2: The IHR amendments were pushed to a vote at the
Speaker 2: seventy seventh World Health Assembly the WHA in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 2: less than forty eight hours after negotiations on them finished.
Speaker 2: This haste was in blatant violation of the who's own
Speaker 2: procedural requirements. In December of twenty one, the WHA instituted
Speaker 2: the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body the I INB to negotiate the PA,
Speaker 2: but this body failed to reach agreements for the twenty
Speaker 2: twenty four WHA. It was then mandated to finish its
Speaker 2: work as soon as possible and no later than a year.
Speaker 2: The WHO has tried to add to the sense of haste,
Speaker 2: with its Director General DG recently claiming that the next
Speaker 2: pandemic could occur tomorrow. Drafts of the PA, along with
Speaker 2: the IHR amendments, seek to centralize management of pandemics and
Speaker 2: pandemic preparedness in the WHO, considerably expanding its role in
Speaker 2: public health. Now I realized that as I'm reading this,
Speaker 2: the PA and the IHR and the DG in the
Speaker 2: whhow and it will get confusing. But this is how
Speaker 2: it's written for contexts. The PA and the IHR amendments
Speaker 2: are squarely aimed at naturally occurring outbreaks, being heavily oriented
Speaker 2: to surveillance for pathogens arising in particular from animal reservoirs
Speaker 2: in Braggett's spillovers. The recent COVID nineteen pandemic being almost
Speaker 2: certainly the result of a laboratory escape, therefore has little
Speaker 2: relevance to much of the proposed changes. The last time
Speaker 2: mortality acute outbreak was the Spanish flu over a century
Speaker 2: ago in the pre antibiotic era. Now equally important is
Speaker 2: the competence of the wahow in potentially having an expanded role.
Speaker 2: The WAHO maintained for years that a lab leak was
Speaker 2: highly unlikely as a cause for COVID, including on its
Speaker 2: investigative panel people suspected of sharing responsibility for work leading
Speaker 2: to the probable leak. It then publicly insisted that there
Speaker 2: was no human to human transmission of the virus, as
Speaker 2: reports increased of spread in the population of Wuhan and
Speaker 2: subsequently provided highly flawed and exaggerated case fatality rates. Despite
Speaker 2: extensive and early evidence of low harm from COVID nineteen
Speaker 2: to children, the WAHO was essentially silent as schools were
Speaker 2: closed for hundreds of millions of children, setting the scene
Speaker 2: for raised child marriage, child labour, and future intergenerational poverty.
Speaker 2: The who's Kovacs mass vaccination campaign then spent nearly ten
Speaker 2: ten billion dollars vaccinating people it knew were mostly already
Speaker 2: immune and never at high risk. Fifty percent of sub
Speaker 2: Saharan populations were less than twenty years of age now
Speaker 2: to promote its Pandemic Preparedness Prevention Response PPPR agenda and
Speaker 2: the increased funding it is requesting to support this, The
Speaker 2: WHO and the wider global health industry looking to benefit
Speaker 2: have embarked on an unusual campaign to demonstrate of demonstrable
Speaker 2: misrepresentation and confusion. Countries in the media have been provided
Speaker 2: with a series of reports shown to greatly exaggerate the
Speaker 2: available evidence and citations on the risk of pandemics occurring,
Speaker 2: exaggerate expected mortality, mostly based on medieval data, and exaggerate
Speaker 2: the expected return on investment. This has been frustrating, and
Speaker 2: while the PA calls for better adherence to honesty and evidence,
Speaker 2: it directs these recommendations to countries rather than the WHO itself.
Speaker 2: Now to the last paragraph of the sixteen page epic,
Speaker 2: the PA the Pandemic Agreements requires sixty ratifications by member
Speaker 2: states and then in bracketts it says plus thirty days
Speaker 2: to enter into force. The PA Pandemic Agreement requires sixty
Speaker 2: ratifications by member states plus thirty days to enter into force,
Speaker 2: which is almost a third of the who's one hundred
Speaker 2: and ninety four members. This number is higher than the
Speaker 2: ratifications commonly required for international treaties. It may reflect a
Speaker 2: disquiet among member states about the usefulness of the PA overall.
Speaker 2: There may therefore be a considerable period between the WHA
Speaker 2: vote where a two thirds its majority is likely to
Speaker 2: be found for an essentially motherhood and meaningless set of statements,
Speaker 2: and finding sufficient countries to confirm willingness to contribute to
Speaker 2: further expanding this draining international commercial and bureaucratic agenda. Summarizes
Speaker 2: it well. It would be refreshing, though, if this could
Speaker 2: be recognized as the rather pointless and in the long
Speaker 2: term harmful exercise and removed from the agenda by a
Speaker 2: may WHA vote against it. So at this point of time,
Speaker 2: I believe the New Zealand is going to sign up
Speaker 2: with it, go for the row, which I think is
Speaker 2: a dumb thing to do. But don't take my word
Speaker 2: for it. You listen to Pierre Corey, You've heard Ramish
Speaker 2: the Kur, David Bell on a number of occasions, people
Speaker 2: who may I suggest, maybe have a better grip on
Speaker 2: things than the elected some of those, some of those
Speaker 2: elected to office. Anyway, that takes us out for podcasts
Speaker 2: two hundred and eighty four. It has been very enjoyable.
Speaker 2: By the way, if you would like to write to
Speaker 2: us Laton at Newstalks AB dot co dot nz and
Speaker 2: Carolyn at NEWSTALKSB dot co dot nz. We shall return
Speaker 2: for podcasts two hundred and eighty five very shortly. Until then,
Speaker 2: as always, thank you for listening and we'll talk soon.
Speaker 3: Thank you for more from News Talks B.
Speaker 1: Listen live on air or online, and keep our shows
Speaker 1: with you wherever you go with our podcast on iHeartRadio