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 us Now the Layton
Speaker 1: Smith Podcast powered by news talks it B.
Speaker 2: Welcome to podcast two hundred and fifty seven for September
Speaker 2: twenty five, twenty twenty four. What is truth is not
Speaker 2: an original question, Neither has it been answered legitimately in
Speaker 2: a myriad of circumstances. In fact, the search for truth
Speaker 2: has been stymied more often than most people would ever realize,
Speaker 2: in all sorts of circumstances. But for it to continue
Speaker 2: in the most elite circles as often as it does
Speaker 2: is not almost criminal, but criminality at its most shameful.
Speaker 2: And so it is in the world of science and medicine. Essentially,
Speaker 2: it's a case of follow the money. The story of
Speaker 2: doctor Linus Pauling is fascinating. His book The Nature of
Speaker 2: the Chemical Bond was or is considered chemistry's most influential
Speaker 2: book of the century. In the three decades since it
Speaker 2: was published, it was cited sixteen thousand times. Linus Pauling
Speaker 2: is one of only five in history to win two
Speaker 2: Nobel Prizes, but Pauling was essentially sacked from his job
Speaker 2: at the California Institute of Technology. Doctor Paul Merrick has
Speaker 2: enjoyed his reputation as the most published and influential clinician
Speaker 2: researcher in critical care medicine in the United States, and
Speaker 2: for good reason. Doctor Merrick is a giant in the
Speaker 2: academic research world, with an h index of triple i,
Speaker 2: which placed him in the top percentile of the world's
Speaker 2: elite published positions. But doctor Merrick was forced out of
Speaker 2: his position and career. To add a further insult, he
Speaker 2: was pressured to resign his medical license. A less a
Speaker 2: man might have given up, but not doctor Merrick. Despite
Speaker 2: facing financial, personal and professional ruin, Marrek focused not on
Speaker 2: himself but on others. With laser like intensity dodtor. Merrick
Speaker 2: found his footing on what mattered most to him, saving
Speaker 2: the life of others. But it didn't stop there. The
Speaker 2: story of doctor Paul Merrick is fascinating. Following the events
Speaker 2: that I've in part described, doctor Merrick turned his attention
Speaker 2: to cancer, but first something came to light shortly before
Speaker 2: this podcast was put to bed, and it came in
Speaker 2: the form of an email from Jordan Williams from the
Speaker 2: Taxpayers Union. At it's headed, Andrew Costa has lost the plot.
Speaker 2: Political pundits across the country spat out their coffee this
Speaker 2: morning upon turning to The New Zealand Herald's front page
Speaker 2: splash that Andrew Costa speaks out on being dragged into
Speaker 2: political debate. Andrew Coster is either trolling the nation or
Speaker 2: has the self awareness of a paper clip. According to
Speaker 2: Jordan Williams, Costa has overseen an enormous pivot by the
Speaker 2: New Zealand Police toward politics and advocacy. Back in June,
Speaker 2: the Police Commissioner's alter ego one Andrew Caster was doing
Speaker 2: media rounds advocating for the government to change alcohol regulations.
Speaker 2: For someone now crying tears about being dragged into political debates,
Speaker 2: it is weird that he was literally leading Morning Report
Speaker 2: just a few months ago in advocating for minimum pricing
Speaker 2: of alcohol. At the time, the Taxpayers Union labeled Costa
Speaker 2: a constitutional barbarian in that he was blatantly ignoring the
Speaker 2: long held constitutional convention that police, especially leadership, enforced the law,
Speaker 2: not lobby to change it has given the middle finger
Speaker 2: to the conventions he was supposed to protect. No wonder
Speaker 2: the new government has not been able to express confidence
Speaker 2: in him. It is a sad reflection on New Zealand
Speaker 2: and our public sector that the only way the government
Speaker 2: has been able to move Costa along is to park
Speaker 2: him in a cushy job in another government department. His
Speaker 2: lag of judgment shows he should be nowhere near a
Speaker 2: leadership role. Cabinet ministers know that that have gone along
Speaker 2: with yet another fudge orchestrated by the Public Services Commission
Speaker 2: for those that want our public service to succeed. It
Speaker 2: is deeply depressing. Now I've sat on the sideline for
Speaker 2: goodness knows how long now and what's cost it in action?
Speaker 2: And I've wondered time and time again how does this
Speaker 2: man retain that position? What does he know that we don't,
Speaker 2: Layton Smith, there are essential fat nutrients that we need
Speaker 2: in our diets as the body cart manufacture them. These
Speaker 2: are Omega three and Omega six fatty acids. Equisine is
Speaker 2: a combination of fish oil and virgin evening primrose oil,
Speaker 2: a formula that provides an excellent source of Omega three
Speaker 2: and Omega six fatty acids in their naturally existing ratios.
Speaker 2: The Omega six from evening primrose oil assists the Omega
Speaker 2: three fish oil to be more effective. Equisine is a
Speaker 2: high quality fish oil supplement enriched with evening primrose oil
Speaker 2: that works synergistically for comprehensive health support. Source from the
Speaker 2: deep sea sardines, Anchovisa Magril provide essential Amiga three fatty
Speaker 2: acids in their purest form without any internal organs or toxins.
Speaker 2: Every batch is tested for its purity before it's allowed
Speaker 2: to be sold. Equisine supports cells to be flexible, so
Speaker 2: important to support healthy blood flow and overall cardiovascular health.
Speaker 2: Equisine can support mood, balance and mental clarity and focus
Speaker 2: in children, all the way to supporting stiff joints, mental focus,
Speaker 2: brain health and healthy eyes as we get older. Equas
Speaker 2: in as a premium, high grade fish and evening primrose
Speaker 2: oil to be taken in addition to a healthy diet
Speaker 2: and is only available from pharmacies and health stores. Always
Speaker 2: read the label and users directed, and if symptoms persist,
Speaker 2: see your healthcare professional. Farmer Broker Auckland. There is a
Speaker 2: book that came out in nineteen eighty two. It's called
Speaker 2: Betrayers of the Truth, Fraud and Deceit in the Halls
Speaker 2: of Science. Nicholas Wade is a journalist with The New
Speaker 2: York Times. He was one of the co authors, and
Speaker 2: it's the sort of book that The New York Times,
Speaker 2: quite frankly these days, wouldn't want to be associated with.
Speaker 2: In my opinion, I want to quote you from the back.
Speaker 2: Betrays of the Truth is an important book for it
Speaker 2: challenges the conventional wisdom of objectivity in science. It is
Speaker 2: not an indictment of all scientists, but rather a thoughtful,
Speaker 2: well written, and well documented analysis of how fraud and
Speaker 2: self delusion can occur in a system which too often
Speaker 2: is claimed to be immune to such deviations. I commend
Speaker 2: it to all readers. Now, the author of that quote
Speaker 2: was doctor Robert H. Ebert, former dean Harvard Medical School. Now,
Speaker 2: with the reputation that Harvard has at the moment, which
Speaker 2: is pretty near the bottom of a pit that's unlikely
Speaker 2: to come out of anybody from Harvard, that to me
Speaker 2: gives the opinion more weight. Anyway, It's a very good
Speaker 2: book that you can get on the second hand book
Speaker 2: market still. Now, off the back of that Washington post
Speaker 2: published August fourteen, the American Board of Internal Medicine revoked
Speaker 2: the certifications of Pierre Corey and Paul Merrick, two physicians
Speaker 2: known for continuing to promote ibermectin and anti parasitic medicaid
Speaker 2: as a treatment for COVID long after the medical community
Speaker 2: founded to be ineffective. The two men co founded the
Speaker 2: Frontline COVID nineteen Critical Care Alliance, which experts say spread
Speaker 2: misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic. Now you know that my
Speaker 2: opinion on experts these days has changed dramatically from what
Speaker 2: it was a few years ago. I'm sick to death
Speaker 2: of the word experts. The aforementioned Dr Paul Merrick is
Speaker 2: in the country at the moment. He is doing a
Speaker 2: speaking tour with another doctor specifically and more people. And
Speaker 2: it's my great pleasure to welcome Dr Paul Merrick to
Speaker 2: the Latensmith podcast. Welcome to New Zealand. Also, by the way,
Speaker 2: I know you've only been here a couple of days.
Speaker 3: Thank you kindly. It's an honor and apprivileged to be
Speaker 3: on the radio show with you.
Speaker 2: Just referring to that last little little quote I read
Speaker 2: from the Washington Post about you losing your license. That's
Speaker 2: not quite accurate, I know, because your license, particularly the
Speaker 2: Virginia license, which was where you were mostly expired in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty two. But the fact that they're still chasing you,
Speaker 2: they're still hunting you down, not just you, not just
Speaker 2: per Cory, but probably a countless number of, shall we say,
Speaker 2: most proficient doctors in America are the subject of a
Speaker 2: similar activity. What do you say to that, now.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so you're absolutely right that they revoked our board
Speaker 3: certification because we were accused of spreading misinformation and we
Speaker 3: are misinformationists and the reality is we just try to
Speaker 3: tell the truth. And science is not finite, it's not decided.
Speaker 3: It's an ongoing process, and you should be able to
Speaker 3: have a dialogue, free dialogue. And once once you sensor science,
Speaker 3: you decapitate science. And so you absolutely correct, they're going
Speaker 3: after peer and myself. And you may not know this,
Speaker 3: but I wrote a book called a Cancer Care Repurpose
Speaker 3: Drugs for the Treatment of Cancer, and the day before
Speaker 3: I actually came to New Zealand, the book was banned
Speaker 3: by Amazon. So Amazon was selling the book. They had
Speaker 3: been selling it for over a year, and then I
Speaker 3: got an email saying that you know, the information that
Speaker 3: I was providing was not truthful, was misleading, and that
Speaker 3: they banning my book and that I'm being banned for life.
Speaker 3: And all I was doing really was quoting peer reviewed
Speaker 3: literature as long as if I was making this stuff up.
Speaker 3: You know, the book has over eight hundred and sixty
Speaker 3: peer reviewed references and everything is peer reviewed, so there
Speaker 3: isn't assault if you go against the narrative, if you
Speaker 3: if you dissent in any way, it's what they do,
Speaker 3: whoever that they is. And it's very disturbing because you know,
Speaker 3: we should be able to in the same way as
Speaker 3: we're having a conversation. Now we may not agree with
Speaker 3: each other, but at least we can have a professional,
Speaker 3: courteous discussion, and that's what science and what life is about.
Speaker 3: And they don't like that.
Speaker 2: Now, is it possible that you can appeal against them?
Speaker 3: So we are yes. I mean, I think many people
Speaker 3: are outraged because it's completely unprecedented in in publishing history,
Speaker 3: because there are books that they sell that are for
Speaker 3: you know, for more for far less scientific, that provide
Speaker 3: information which is not truly accurate, and they being sold
Speaker 3: by Amazon. So we feel that they're specifically targeting me
Speaker 3: and targeting the book because you know, we strongly challenge,
Speaker 3: very strongly challenged the status quo, and that's what they
Speaker 3: don't like, particularly the financial implications. So in the US,
Speaker 3: cancer care is a two hundred billion plus industry, and
Speaker 3: so we are providing, you know, alternatives which can be
Speaker 3: used adjunctively or independently to promote people's health, to prevent cancer,
Speaker 3: and as adjunctive therapy to treat cancer. And obviously this
Speaker 3: goes against the narrative and it goes against mainstream medicine.
Speaker 2: You know, I have just checked with Amazon Australia because
Speaker 2: I've had a previous experience where the book was no
Speaker 2: longer available in America, but I could get it from
Speaker 2: Amazon Australia. What I've got is currently unavailable. We don't
Speaker 2: know when or if this item will be back in stock.
Speaker 2: So there's the answer. I would like to arrange with
Speaker 2: you somehow that I get a copy of that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so obviously the book's no longer available, and so
Speaker 3: the email they sent me made it quite clear that
Speaker 3: the book has discontinued. My accounts discontinued, and I've been discontinued.
Speaker 3: So the book you can't get from Amazon. We obviously
Speaker 3: are working out alternatives, but I can most certainly send
Speaker 3: you a PDF of the book for you to read.
Speaker 2: That would be very useful. Now, I did know that
Speaker 2: you'd published that book, because I've done a little bit
Speaker 2: of a little bit of background. But what I don't
Speaker 2: understand is how they can justify the comments that they
Speaker 2: made to you based on the statistics that you produced
Speaker 2: and the effect that it had on patients at East
Speaker 2: Virginia Medical School where you were in those early days.
Speaker 2: What has followed on from that, sorry, after you left EVMS,
Speaker 2: what has followed on as far as that hospital is concerned.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's a good question that they that continued along
Speaker 3: their merry way as if I was never there. So,
Speaker 3: I mean, the way this all started, if you remember,
Speaker 3: is in March of twenty twenty, the NIH the CDC,
Speaker 3: the who said, you know, there's no specific treatment for COVID,
Speaker 3: you just stay at home until you got blue. And
Speaker 3: any physician will tell you that's completely ridiculous. A physician
Speaker 3: is not going to just watch a secrepation and do nothing.
Speaker 3: So that's what was the impetus for, you know, doctor
Speaker 3: Corey and myself and some other colleagues to put together
Speaker 3: the FLCCC and the protocols, and so that's what we did,
Speaker 3: and it was based on the best available science. You know,
Speaker 3: we looked, we understood the disease, we understood the science,
Speaker 3: and we basically put together a protocol. You know, initially
Speaker 3: we recommended corticos steroids, and we were severely reprimanded. People
Speaker 3: said it was unethical to use the cordico steroids for
Speaker 3: a viral illness. But lo and behold, six months later,
Speaker 3: the recovery study came out showing that cudico steroids were
Speaker 3: life saving. We used anti coagulants happened, which was subsolutely
Speaker 3: proven to be correct. And then obviously we realized that
Speaker 3: the best way to control the pandemic was early treatment.
Speaker 3: And I think that remains as valid today as it
Speaker 3: was then. Is there's no disease that benefits from waiting
Speaker 3: until the patient progresses to the point they need to
Speaker 3: go to a hospital. It's an absurdity. So we put
Speaker 3: together an early treatment protocol. And as it so happens,
Speaker 3: there are twenty or twenty five pharmaceutical or nutraceutical drugs
Speaker 3: that have been shown to be highly effective for the
Speaker 3: early treatment of COVID, including hydroxychloroquin and overmectin. So that's
Speaker 3: how we got into this. But you know, the hospital
Speaker 3: I was that basically much like Amazon banned me, they
Speaker 3: banned my protocol which was highly successful. You know, we
Speaker 3: looked at my data versus other clinicians data, and the
Speaker 3: data suggested we could reduce the risk of hospital death
Speaker 3: by at least fifty percent. But that was inconvenient because
Speaker 3: I was not using the WHO or H protocols. So
Speaker 3: you know, what I've come to discover is that this
Speaker 3: is not about doing what's best for the patient. This
Speaker 3: is not about optimizing patient outcome. This is not about
Speaker 3: helping people. This is about conplex of interest, financial interests,
Speaker 3: and power plays.
Speaker 2: Can you recall off the top of your head what
Speaker 2: your results were when you first were active with hospital patients.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so you know, it's been debated and Corey and
Speaker 3: myself were actually accused of false, falsifying data, and scientific
Speaker 3: misconduct because we published the data. So we know that
Speaker 3: the hospital mortality from COVID was around twenty percent, we
Speaker 3: published data showing that it was in our hands eight percent,
Speaker 3: and that eight percent was data I received from the
Speaker 3: chief medical officer. He personally gave me the data and
Speaker 3: told me that it was about eight percent, and that's
Speaker 3: what we published in our papers. So that's a significant reduction.
Speaker 3: What they then did after the fact is accused us
Speaker 3: of scientific misconduct because they were able to show that
Speaker 3: with time the mortality went up to about ten percent.
Speaker 3: And obviously if you followed patients for long enough, some
Speaker 3: of them will die. But we looked at twenty eight
Speaker 3: day mortality, and so based on the complaints of the
Speaker 3: hospital and the hospital system, the journal retracted and removed
Speaker 3: the paper, accusing us of scientific misconduct. And so even
Speaker 3: if one takes a conservative reduction, they claimed it was
Speaker 3: ten percent. We know the hospital mortality was about twenty percent.
Speaker 3: So at least we were able to show that there
Speaker 3: was at least a of the fifty percent reduction in
Speaker 3: the risk of death. But that was very inconvenient for them.
Speaker 2: Indeed, after the pandemic struck, doctor Merrick wrote to the WHO,
Speaker 2: doctor Fauci, the head of the NIH, the head of
Speaker 2: New York City's Department of Health, and the health minister
Speaker 2: in Lombardy in Italy about his new repurpose drug COVID
Speaker 2: protocol pre ivermectin, involving vitamin C cursoritin, zinc, and melatonin.
Speaker 2: He explained that lives could be saved by offering this
Speaker 2: to patients immediately. Doctor Merrick wrote in his letter, doctor
Speaker 2: Fauci and others are promoting the idea of performing randomized
Speaker 2: control tests. I believe that is unethical. I believe it's
Speaker 2: unethical to do such trials. How can you offer patients
Speaker 2: a placebo when testing a drug that you believe may
Speaker 2: have clinical efficacy. Every patient needs to get the best
Speaker 2: treatment that we can offer. We could expect no less
Speaker 2: from our loved ones. Furthermore, once these trials are eventually completed,
Speaker 2: we will all be dead or the pandemic will be over.
Speaker 2: This does not mean that we should not be studying
Speaker 2: the impact of these interventions. Detailed observational studies can provide
Speaker 2: useful information. What did you get back from the expert,
Speaker 2: doctor Plci? Yeah?
Speaker 3: So please you quoted that because I had forgotten that letter.
Speaker 3: We had sent that same letter to hundreds of people,
Speaker 3: you know, healthcare administrators, heads of state, the who, and
Speaker 3: we did not get a single response, not a single response.
Speaker 3: And you know, obviously I'm pretty impressed with what we
Speaker 3: wrote that because it holds the same position then as
Speaker 3: it does now. The idea of doing a randomized study
Speaker 3: when you actually have an effective therapy goes against the
Speaker 3: whole hypocratic principle. And so you know, for example, you know,
Speaker 3: we developed a protocol for using vitamin C for sepsis,
Speaker 3: and we consider doing a randomized study, but my nurses
Speaker 3: refused because they could with their own eyes, they could
Speaker 3: see how effective vitamins was for treating early sepsis, and
Speaker 3: they said, it's unethical. How can you randomize a patient
Speaker 3: to get placebo when you know the drug you're giving
Speaker 3: is effective. And that's essentially what they were trying to do,
Speaker 3: is that, as I said, as a clinician, you give
Speaker 3: the patient your your only interest is the patient in
Speaker 3: front of you, and you have to do what you
Speaker 3: think is in the patient's best interests, and you know,
Speaker 3: to randomize them to placebo is completely unethical. And you're
Speaker 3: right at the beginning, we were convinced that, you know,
Speaker 3: and the data has borne out that for certain vitamin C, zinc,
Speaker 3: and vitamin D are really highly effective in preventing and
Speaker 3: treating COVID. You know, instead of you know, if if
Speaker 3: the health agencies were really concerned about the health of
Speaker 3: the elderly people in elderly homes, probably the most important
Speaker 3: intervention would have been just to give the vitamin D,
Speaker 3: just because we know vitamin D has such potent immunological properties,
Speaker 3: and we know if you have a good vitamin D level,
Speaker 3: your chances of dying or getting ready sick for COVID
Speaker 3: already close to zero. So what they should have just done,
Speaker 3: so cheap, so effective, is just given these people vitamin D.
Speaker 3: But again it went against the consensus, and nobody makes money.
Speaker 3: You know, vitamin D is a over the counter generic drug.
Speaker 3: It's exceedingly cheap that one makes money from describing vitamin D.
Speaker 3: And there's no question in my mind if we had
Speaker 3: gone on a campaign of promoting vitamin D, the mortality
Speaker 3: from COVID would have been significantly less.
Speaker 2: What about vitamin C? I would have thought that vitamin
Speaker 2: C would have been at the forefront of the medical
Speaker 2: professions interest.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so, you know what people don't recognize is that
Speaker 3: there are only two species on this planet that don't
Speaker 3: make vitamin C when you stressed. So humans and guinea
Speaker 3: pigs are the only species that don't make vitamin C?
Speaker 2: Are they one and the same human beings?
Speaker 3: And yeah, sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference between
Speaker 3: a guinea pig and a human and that's a good one.
Speaker 3: But you know, just from a genetic and evolutionary point
Speaker 3: of view, we know humans just don't make vitamin C
Speaker 3: when they stressed, and vitamin C is more of a
Speaker 3: stress hormone than it is a vitamin and plays a
Speaker 3: really important role in the stress response. So it doesn't
Speaker 3: really matter what the stress is. It could be psychological stress,
Speaker 3: it could be psychiatric stress. It could be stressed because
Speaker 3: you writing exams that you you need to produce vitamin C.
Speaker 3: And obviously if you're having surgery or have had trauma,
Speaker 3: you can't produce vitamin C. Vitamin C is really important
Speaker 3: and so that's why, you know, we would suggest any
Speaker 3: you know, if you're healthy and you eat a regular diet,
Speaker 3: you should get enough vitamin C. But if you stress,
Speaker 3: if you're under a stress situation, most definitely you should
Speaker 3: supplement with vitamin C.
Speaker 2: I'll ask you a question. Well, I've got a couple
Speaker 2: of questions. Actually they fit together. What's the greatest challenge
Speaker 2: threat or problem that confronts science medical science in particular,
Speaker 2: as that's what we're talking about. Can I make a
Speaker 2: suggestion that it's politics.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so you ask a really good question, and it's
Speaker 3: really unfortunate. Unfortunately science has been co opted by other
Speaker 3: forces politics, finance, power, and so you know, just just
Speaker 3: the fact that we're being censored is really a significant
Speaker 3: attraction of what science should be. You know, we don't
Speaker 3: have to agree. Science is evolving, it changes. I mean
Speaker 3: we know that, you know, people did blood letting and
Speaker 3: leaches and all kinds of therapies based on what they
Speaker 3: at that time, you know, thought was the best therapy.
Speaker 3: But science progresses, it's evolving, and so we need to
Speaker 3: be able to have differences of opinion, We need to
Speaker 3: explore different options. And certainly, once politics gets intertwined in science,
Speaker 3: it can only pervert science.
Speaker 2: So my other question is your opinion of Scientific American.
Speaker 3: You mean the journal Scientific Americans. So you know, I
Speaker 3: can look at my life at pre COVID and post COVID,
Speaker 3: you know, BCAC, and I can say that BC I
Speaker 3: used to believe almost everything that came from the medical
Speaker 3: journals New England Journal Lands at Scientific America, because that's
Speaker 3: what we were led to believe. These people have no
Speaker 3: vested interests, there's no conflict of interest, and that the
Speaker 3: science is true. I've subsequently discovered that at least eighty five,
Speaker 3: maybe ninety percent of published papers of fraudulent, deceptive, dishonest.
Speaker 3: And that's very, very disturbing, because if you can't trust
Speaker 3: these organizations and these journals, who can you trust? And
Speaker 3: so I think people have to, you know, general public,
Speaker 3: but particularly doctors and scientists have to be scrupulous in
Speaker 3: reviewing papers and understanding that there may be significant amount
Speaker 3: of rule that has been perpetuated.
Speaker 2: The reason I asked you that is because less than
Speaker 2: an hour ago I got an email that Scientific American
Speaker 2: has endorsed Kamala Harris. Now, the reason for that, or
Speaker 2: the reasons for that, are fairly obvious. It appears to
Speaker 2: me that Scientific American has deserted its platform and is
Speaker 2: now engaged in a shall we say, a campaign, a war,
Speaker 2: call it whatever you like, along with other experts, and
Speaker 2: it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit the role any longer
Speaker 2: of one to be trusted. The editorial drew sharp contrast
Speaker 2: between Harris and Donald Trump, who they described as one
Speaker 2: who quote endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence,
Speaker 2: prefer instead nonsensical conspiracy theories. Now, when I read that,
Speaker 2: I thought immediately of hydroxychloroquine. I also expressed concern over
Speaker 2: Trump's dangerous and disasters record, and particularly his handling of
Speaker 2: public health during the COVID nineteen pandemic and his rollback
Speaker 2: of environmental protections. If you're interested, a couple of comments
Speaker 2: from other people, one being doctor Jordan Peterson an utterly
Speaker 2: predictable and worse boring revelation from the pathetic and self
Speaker 2: destructive woke mob that captured the magazine that captured the
Speaker 2: journal and doctor Gad sad authoritarian leftist partisanship has hijacked
Speaker 2: everything academia, science, journalism, medicine, business, law, entertainment, culture, justice system, etc.
Speaker 2: So he's an evolutionary behavior scientist for anyone who doesn't know. So,
Speaker 2: I've had no faith in those magazines for some time.
Speaker 2: Now there's even less reason to have any sort of
Speaker 2: faith in them.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So I wasn't aware of this development later, No,
Speaker 3: it just happened.
Speaker 2: It's just happened. That's why I thought i'd break the
Speaker 2: news to you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think it's shocking. I think it's highly disturbing.
Speaker 3: There's no question of doubt that medical journals and medical
Speaker 3: publications should be completely nonpartisan. They should not be involved
Speaker 3: in political dabbling and in quoting or misquoting politicians. Science
Speaker 3: is not political. It doesn't matter if you left or right.
Speaker 3: Was interested is the scientific truth. And once journals start
Speaker 3: dabbling in politics, we go down a very dark road.
Speaker 2: Which we have traveled in this country. And of course
Speaker 2: you're aware of it with the previous prime minister and
Speaker 2: we were one of the shall we say, worst affected
Speaker 2: countries in the world over matters of lockdown.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so you know what you know, as I said before,
Speaker 3: we either dividom my life BC and AC and unfortunately,
Speaker 3: and I don't think many people appreciate the extent of
Speaker 3: the lines that we were told. And so the absurdity
Speaker 3: is that doctor Correa myself are quote it has been misinformationist,
Speaker 3: but we're in fact telling the truth. And when you
Speaker 3: actually look at the truth everything they told us, like
Speaker 3: everything was a lie and it was predetermined, you can say,
Speaker 3: you know, where did the virus come from? This wasn't
Speaker 3: from nature. You can look at the use of masks
Speaker 3: we know that there was a complete and out of failure.
Speaker 3: It's been well established. But COVID spreads by aerosol, not
Speaker 3: by droplets spread, and this has been well defined scientifically.
Speaker 3: We knew this in twenty twenty. And if you reckon
Speaker 3: that it's spread by aerosols, then it makes masks completely ineffective,
Speaker 3: it makes social distancing ineffective, it makes lockdowns completely ineffective.
Speaker 3: So what they did was they instituted, were not just
Speaker 3: instituted mandated policies that were not based on good science.
Speaker 3: And as we know, the consequences have been enormous, particularly
Speaker 3: in places like Australia and New Zealand and Canada, where
Speaker 3: you know, these draconian measures were enforced with almost military
Speaker 3: like activity.
Speaker 2: I want to make mention in passing of doctor Linus Pauling,
Speaker 2: and I quote from an artic written by justice not
Speaker 2: legal justice, justice Jus t Us Hope m D. He
Speaker 2: refers to the IV Vitamin C protocol that you have.
Speaker 2: How would you put it just not discovered? What would
Speaker 2: you say?
Speaker 3: Yeah, we reinvented it, you know, I mean, so it's
Speaker 3: very unusual for someone to invent something is often just
Speaker 3: history repeating itself so you know, we put this protocol
Speaker 3: together based on you know, his work as well as
Speaker 3: other people's work, and you know, we show to be
Speaker 3: highly effective.
Speaker 2: So Dr Pauling, well, I'll just back up a little
Speaker 2: bit referring to you. Doctor Marrek has enjoyed his reputation
Speaker 2: as the most published and influential clinician researcher in critical
Speaker 2: care medicine in the United States quote unquote, and for
Speaker 2: good reason. Doctor Marek is a giant in the academic
Speaker 2: research world, with an H index of one to eleven.
Speaker 2: What is an H index?
Speaker 3: Yeah, so an H index is a balance between the
Speaker 3: number of papers you've published and the number of times
Speaker 3: the papers have been quoted. Because it's all very well
Speaker 3: writing a paper, but if people ignore the paper and
Speaker 3: you know, don't quote the paper, then it's it means
Speaker 3: it's had a low impact. So the H index is
Speaker 3: a blend of number of publications and the number of
Speaker 3: times it's been quoted. Most noble laureates have an H
Speaker 3: index of about forty to fifty. So you know, an
Speaker 3: H index of over one hundred year signifies pretty significant
Speaker 3: clinical and research productivity.
Speaker 2: So your H index of one hundred and eleven which
Speaker 2: placed him in the top percentile of the world's elite
Speaker 2: published physitions. This stunned me as I as I read it.
Speaker 2: After the way that you've been dealt with. His ivy
Speaker 2: vitamin C protocol known as HAT HAT guarded massive attention
Speaker 2: with more than eleven hundred anecdotes from physicians around the
Speaker 2: world world noting similar almost miraculous results from their septic
Speaker 2: shock patients, and then mentions your hospital recorded a drop
Speaker 2: in the death rate of of your sepsis patients from
Speaker 2: twenty two percent to six percent over the year after
Speaker 2: you began using that vitamin C protocol. Now getting back
Speaker 2: to Linus Pauling, he also was utilizing the same methodology.
Speaker 2: He was afflicted with Bright's disease, a kidney condition at
Speaker 2: age forty. He found an unorthodox but effective way to
Speaker 2: treat himself using three grams per day of vitamin C. However,
Speaker 2: this use of repurposed vitamins threatened the status quo and
Speaker 2: was vehemently denounced as quackery. Doctor Merrick has found himself
Speaker 2: similarly attacked by various moneyed interests. But the point is
Speaker 2: that Linus Pauling kept himself alive for some considerable time
Speaker 2: on that exact methodology.
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, he wasn't a physician.
Speaker 3: You know, he was a basic scientist and a physicist,
Speaker 3: but he understood the astonishing properties of vitamin C and
Speaker 3: he obviously treated himself with vitamin C. And so the
Speaker 3: point is that it's a vitamin C is a particularly
Speaker 3: safe a drug or mineral or supplement. It's almost impossible
Speaker 3: to harm somebody with vitamin C. So you know, you
Speaker 3: compare that with many of the common drugs that we
Speaker 3: use that have a terrible side effect profile. So you know,
Speaker 3: vitamin C is what the big farmer in the industrial
Speaker 3: complex despises, something which is cheap, something which is safe,
Speaker 3: which has a very favorable side effect profile, and can
Speaker 3: be highly effective. It's exactly the kind of pharmaceutical intervention
Speaker 3: they despise.
Speaker 2: So just before we move on, I know that you
Speaker 2: told this story, well I'm sure that you have told
Speaker 2: this story so often, but I would like you to
Speaker 2: repeat it, just briefly or otherwise as you want. When
Speaker 2: you were in hospital, when you were working in hospital
Speaker 2: and you developed this protocol, the seventy three year old
Speaker 2: woman who came in on death's or just relate that
Speaker 2: experience for us.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I remember it to this day quite well,
Speaker 3: of course. So this was a lady in her seventies
Speaker 3: who had severe, overwhelming accepsis and as if I recall,
Speaker 3: it was from the billary tract and she was in
Speaker 3: established septic shock. Her heart was not functioning, she needed
Speaker 3: drugs to support her blood pressure, she need a ventilator
Speaker 3: to support her lungs, she needed that dialysis machine to
Speaker 3: control kidney failure. And so I knew this woman was
Speaker 3: dying from a potentially treatable disease. So, you know, I
Speaker 3: scratched my head and I thought, you know, what can
Speaker 3: I do? You know, which is what most physicians would do.
Speaker 3: You know, you just you got to scratch the barrel.
Speaker 3: And I was aware of a physician at the University
Speaker 3: of Virginia who had been using vitamin C and I
Speaker 3: looked up the dose that he had used, and I thought,
Speaker 3: you know what, let me try this. What what do
Speaker 3: I have to lose? So I asked the pharmacists did
Speaker 3: they have ivy vitamin C? And indeed they did, so
Speaker 3: I said, well, you know, could we please give this
Speaker 3: the ivy vitamin C to this patient? You know, she's dying,
Speaker 3: and I think it can help her. Obviously, I had
Speaker 3: no idea what the outcome would be, you know, I
Speaker 3: had expected that when I went home, the poor lady
Speaker 3: would have passed on, and I was stunned. To say
Speaker 3: I was stunned would be an understatement. The next morning
Speaker 3: she was sitting up in bed, awake, alert and responsive,
Speaker 3: and it was. It was truly one of the most
Speaker 3: astonishing things that I had seen. And the nurses, of
Speaker 3: course were obviously overwhelmed with happiness and pleasure because they
Speaker 3: had seen the miracle of vitamin C in action. And
Speaker 3: so obviously once you see something, you say, well it
Speaker 3: was it just a fluck? Was she going to get better?
Speaker 3: Or is there is this a valid intervention? So we
Speaker 3: repeated it, and each time we saw the same thing,
Speaker 3: and so we knew that this was a real thing.
Speaker 3: What we did, though, which is really important, is that
Speaker 3: we treated patients early. So these are patients who came
Speaker 3: into the ICU were really sick and they were dying
Speaker 3: the same way is you know, as I said, you
Speaker 3: don't wait for patients to get sicker, And we gave
Speaker 3: the vitamin C immediately upfront, and so there have been
Speaker 3: a number of randomized trials which have failed to replicate
Speaker 3: what we did, including a study out of Australia. But
Speaker 3: what they did in this particular study is they waited
Speaker 3: at least twenty four hours after the patient had been
Speaker 3: admitted to hospital before they had given the vita C,
Speaker 3: which makes absolutely no sense because if you're at risk
Speaker 3: of dying, you want to intervene early. As I said before,
Speaker 3: there's no disease that benefits from a delay in initiating therapy.
Speaker 3: But this was done, we think, by design, to try
Speaker 3: and discredit vitamin C. And after that, after that, you know,
Speaker 3: we continue to use vitamin C. And we put together
Speaker 3: a observational study because my nurses thought it unethical to
Speaker 3: do a randomized study. You know, when you know something
Speaker 3: is effective, because the nurses could see it, risk of
Speaker 3: patients getting kidney failure went down, the use of the
Speaker 3: analysis machines went down, the length of stay in the
Speaker 3: ICU went down. So we kept on doing this and
Speaker 3: we you know, we collected forty eight patients and we
Speaker 3: we published the data as an observational study. We used
Speaker 3: a retrospective control group and it did, you know, it
Speaker 3: did get people's attention, and we know from speaking to
Speaker 3: clinicians that the response that we saw was very similar
Speaker 3: to what they saw. But again, there were a number
Speaker 3: of studies that were designed which we think we're designed
Speaker 3: to fail, in which the vitamin C was given very late,
Speaker 3: and you know in that situation it's likely to be
Speaker 3: less effective. And I think today you know there's still
Speaker 3: a lot of interesting vitamin C. Although you know the
Speaker 3: powers that we think it's an effective therapy. It's safe,
Speaker 3: which is really important. So at worst, what you know,
Speaker 3: when where patients called me, I said, well, you know what,
Speaker 3: what do you have to lose? All that can happen
Speaker 3: is you can say of the patient's life, it's exceedingly
Speaker 3: safe and it's cheap. But that goes against you know,
Speaker 3: what the pharmaceutical industrial complex is trying to push.
Speaker 2: You came from South Africa and I think ninety five
Speaker 2: ninety two.
Speaker 3: If I remember I left just before a part eight
Speaker 3: fell apart.
Speaker 2: Well, your memory on that date would be better than mine,
Speaker 2: of course, So you moved in ninety two, you discovered
Speaker 2: success and recognition, and now you find yourself in a
Speaker 2: position of unemployment in what is your career? What you'd
Speaker 2: prefer to be doing. How are you well? First of all,
Speaker 2: do you have any regrets on moving to America after
Speaker 2: after what's happened? And how are you now making a living?
Speaker 3: Yeah, so you asked some good questions. So, you know,
Speaker 3: I thought the move to the US was a good move.
Speaker 3: It gave me enormous opportunities. I could achieve what I
Speaker 3: wanted achieve professionally. But obviously I had no idea what
Speaker 3: was in store for me. You know, I thought, if
Speaker 3: you were a scientist and you tell the truth, that
Speaker 3: people value those characteristics, but certainly not so obviously, you know,
Speaker 3: telling the truth. And with COVID, I lost my job,
Speaker 3: I lost my license, I lost my hospital privileges. As
Speaker 3: you said, the American Board of Internal Medicine decertified me.
Speaker 3: So basically the system had made me unemployable, which is,
Speaker 3: you know, which is a pity. But you know what, I.
Speaker 2: Don't sound angry.
Speaker 3: You know what I've I missed clinical medicine because that's
Speaker 3: what I was. I was a South African doctor who's
Speaker 3: got enormous enjoyment and satisfaction from treating patients, you know,
Speaker 3: direct patient contact, which I think is so important. But
Speaker 3: I've had to kind of reinvent myself. Obviously, financially, I've
Speaker 3: taken a big hit, But you know what, money doesn't
Speaker 3: buy everything in this world. And so I've found a
Speaker 3: new niche of trying to tell the truth as it
Speaker 3: goes to cancer, as it goes to diabetes, as it
Speaker 3: goes to depression, as it goes to most chronic diseases,
Speaker 3: because basically, the healthcare system in the US anyway, and
Speaker 3: I would assume in most Western countries, is a system
Speaker 3: based on chronic disease. It's a system which promotes sickness,
Speaker 3: it promotes the use of medications. It's a sickness system
Speaker 3: rather than a healthcare system. And so for many of
Speaker 3: the diseases I've mentioned, you know, what they want to
Speaker 3: do is get you hooked on medication for life. And
Speaker 3: I give you as an example. I was a type
Speaker 3: two diabetic and I thought I would have type two
Speaker 3: diabetes for the rest of my life and I would
Speaker 3: be dependent on, you know, expensive pharmaceutical products. But just
Speaker 3: adopting a number of lifestyle changes which are not very difficult,
Speaker 3: I was able to cure myself of diabetes. And you know,
Speaker 3: you can say the same thing about metabolic syndrome, depression,
Speaker 3: many autoimmune diseases that you know, patients can empower themselves
Speaker 3: to take control, not to trust the healthcare system. Terrible
Speaker 3: thing that I'm saying, and I say this with a
Speaker 3: broken heart, that the healthcare system is not a healthcare system.
Speaker 3: It's a disease system that's designed to keep you as
Speaker 3: sick as you can for as long as they can,
Speaker 3: and for them to make as much money as they can.
Speaker 3: And so I have evolved, and so I have, you know,
Speaker 3: help people, and I think in this role maybe I've
Speaker 3: reached more people than I did before.
Speaker 2: And I hope you continue to do so. Guy Hatchett
Speaker 2: is an Englishman who book up residents in New Zealand
Speaker 2: some considerable time back. He is not a doctor, but
Speaker 2: he's a PhD in an associated area. He published something
Speaker 2: on and he publishes frequently and he's finding a battle.
Speaker 2: But he published something over this last weekend to do
Speaker 2: with New Zealand Emergency Department data wire a freedom of
Speaker 2: information request to the Health Department or Health New Zealand.
Speaker 2: They were asked for the number of people under the
Speaker 2: age of forty presenting to emergency departments throughout New Zealand
Speaker 2: hospitals with chest pain or heart issues by year, And
Speaker 2: here are some quick figures twenty nineteen, twenty two hundred
Speaker 2: and nineteen, twenty twenty four, four hundred and six, twenty one,
Speaker 2: thirteen thousand and sixty three, twenty two, twenty one thousand,
Speaker 2: four hundred and sixteen in twenty three, last year twenty
Speaker 2: thousand and five, and so far this year, not so
Speaker 2: far to June this year, halfway through the year it
Speaker 2: was fourteen thousand, six hundred and thirty nine. How do
Speaker 2: those figures affect you? What are your thoughts?
Speaker 3: Yeah, so, I think those figures are alarming and any
Speaker 3: health care administrator or any healthcare anyone involved in healthcare
Speaker 3: should be shocked by those data because obviously there's something
Speaker 3: that's happened in our community that's affecting the health of
Speaker 3: young people and their cardiovascular health. And you know, it's
Speaker 3: not difficult to know what that intervention is. It certainly
Speaker 3: is not climate change. Climate change has not caused all
Speaker 3: of these heart attacks and chest pains. There is something
Speaker 3: that happened in twenty one, twenty two, twenty three, and
Speaker 3: you know, I'll let you guess or your listeners guess
Speaker 3: what it was, but that intervention has directly increased the
Speaker 3: risk of cardiovascular disease, chest pain, and sudden death. And
Speaker 3: it's alarming. And so if healthcare administrators or legislators were
Speaker 3: really interested in the healthcare of the community, they would
Speaker 3: investigate this in significant depth and to try and figure
Speaker 3: out which, we know, what the cause is, the you
Speaker 3: know what has happened, and what measures can be taken
Speaker 3: to protect these poor people from further quodiovascular events.
Speaker 2: I'll get your opinion. Also on his last short paragraph,
Speaker 2: it is so far past time to recognize past mRNA
Speaker 2: COVID vaccine harm and the growing dangers ahead, especially as
Speaker 2: multiple mRNA vaccines are under development and soon to be
Speaker 2: offered to the public. Our government is planning to deregulate biotechnology,
Speaker 2: rushing like a must to the flame. This has to
Speaker 2: stop now, And you would.
Speaker 3: Say, yeah, I absolutely agree. I mean so obviously, what
Speaker 3: I was saying is that there's very good data that
Speaker 3: these jabs, these amorina genetic therapy jabs are directly responsible
Speaker 3: for the massive increase in a sudden deaths in cardiovascular
Speaker 3: events through multiple different pathways. The spike protein is probably
Speaker 3: the most toxic protein known to the human body. It
Speaker 3: does all kinds of really bad things. A recent paper
Speaker 3: in Nature, which is a really reputable journal, so you know,
Speaker 3: we're going back to the journals. Can you trust it?
Speaker 3: But it actually showed that spike protein directly binds to fibrin,
Speaker 3: which is a clotting protein and activates clotting. So you
Speaker 3: know that wasn't censored up until now. And so we
Speaker 3: know that spike protein causes inflammation of the lining of
Speaker 3: the blood vessels, it causes inflammation in krdiac blood vessels,
Speaker 3: it causes damage to the heart. So this is a
Speaker 3: this is a well documented in the literature observation, and
Speaker 3: so it puts the community at increased risk of sudden
Speaker 3: cardiac deaths. And we know there's been an explosion of
Speaker 3: sudden deaths in young people, which is very, very troubling.
Speaker 2: How many speeches have you given so far? Just the one?
Speaker 3: So in New Zealand, we had an event in christ Church.
Speaker 3: I've given you one lecture there, and we have an
Speaker 3: upcoming event in Auckland and I'm going to repeat the
Speaker 3: same lecture. But you know, I've done many zoom conferences
Speaker 3: on this topic, and you know I will continue to
Speaker 3: tell the truth. But you know, if people want to disagree,
Speaker 3: then that's fine. We can have a civil conversation and
Speaker 3: discuss the science, but you can't obliterate what you don't
Speaker 3: want to see.
Speaker 2: Any doctors turn up for your christ Church speech, you know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So surprisingly, their attendance was very good. You know,
Speaker 3: I would say fifty percent will maybe lay people, fifty
Speaker 3: percent were physicians. And I think, you know, it's a
Speaker 3: delight to speak to these people because you feel that
Speaker 3: you are you're amongst your brothers and sisters, that you
Speaker 3: like minded people, and you can talk to each other.
Speaker 3: And it was very enlightening. I think it was enlightening
Speaker 3: for me, but for the audience as well. And that's
Speaker 3: what we need more of, is let's have open dialogue,
Speaker 3: Let's talk to each other. Let's be civil to each other,
Speaker 3: rather than all these censorship and recriminations and tapers being
Speaker 3: withdrawn and books being banned. I think that's heading in
Speaker 3: a really bad direction.
Speaker 2: But it's hitting in that direction along with another a
Speaker 2: number of other causes. Shall we say, of those doctors
Speaker 2: who turned up for christ Church, did any challenge you? Seriously?
Speaker 3: No, I can't think of this thing. You know, we
Speaker 3: had many you know, after the lecture, I spoke to
Speaker 3: many physicians and none of them could present, you know,
Speaker 3: data which discredited what I had to say. So I
Speaker 3: think that they were in full agreement because if you
Speaker 3: look at the data they even the data that's published,
Speaker 3: it's overwhelming. It's you know, it's very difficult to dispute
Speaker 3: the obvious. For example, I can give you quote one
Speaker 3: study from the Cleveland Clinic. The Cleveland Clinic is regarded
Speaker 3: as one of the most prestigious medical institutions in the world,
Speaker 3: and basically what they showed is the more the increasing
Speaker 3: number of times you get jabbed, So those patients who
Speaker 3: received the most number of vaccinations had the increased risk
Speaker 3: of getting COVID. So rather than the jab protecting you,
Speaker 3: it seemed that the more times that they received the vaccine,
Speaker 3: the more times, the greater their risk of getting COVID,
Speaker 3: so that the risk of COVID increased with the number
Speaker 3: of jabs. I mean, it's very compelling data.
Speaker 2: I want I want to raise another subject just before
Speaker 2: we conclude, and just just get your opinion. So I
Speaker 2: asked this as an innocent question, do you have an
Speaker 2: opinion on statins.
Speaker 3: So that's a really interesting question. As I say, you know,
Speaker 3: I have changed, as is my understanding. I used to
Speaker 3: take a statin until they became aware of the staaten hoax.
Speaker 3: It's a complete and ut a hoax that these drugs
Speaker 3: have significant side effects. In fact, you know, what they
Speaker 3: do is interfere with cholesterol synthesis, and the probably the
Speaker 3: most important organ that depends on cholesterol is the brain.
Speaker 3: The brand has a high cholesterol content, and there's very
Speaker 3: good data showing that statins increase your risk of dementia.
Speaker 3: We know statins increase the risk of liver disease, statins
Speaker 3: increase the risk of muscle disease, but do they protect
Speaker 3: And the data suggests that if for primary prophylaxis, the
Speaker 3: use of statins has negligible impact, So it increases the
Speaker 3: risk of side effects with very little positive benefit. There
Speaker 3: may be certain subgroups of patients that may benefit from
Speaker 3: a statin for a short time limited trial months, but
Speaker 3: these are not drugs that should be given lifelong. It
Speaker 3: just so happens that the statin but torvas staaten is
Speaker 3: the most commonly prescribed drug in the United States of America.
Speaker 3: That's this stranglehold Big Farmat has on the medical system.
Speaker 3: We used to think that statan's were effective in preventing
Speaker 3: heart disease, but we've now discovered that the converse is true.
Speaker 2: When you say where would where would one find that
Speaker 2: information confirmation?
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's actually a few books that have been written
Speaker 3: called the Staten Hoax, which I would suggest people read.
Speaker 3: You know, obviously, the medical literature, the major medical journals
Speaker 3: aren't going to promote this idea, but there have been
Speaker 3: meta analyses that have been done published in peer review
Speaker 3: journals which actually show that the mortality benefit of of
Speaker 3: primary profile acces with statins is close to zero, close
Speaker 3: to zero. And we do know that statin's increase, as
Speaker 3: I said, the isk of dementia, diabetes, lever disease, muscle disease. So,
Speaker 3: you know, the truth ready is important.
Speaker 2: But the eternal question is what is truth? That doesn't
Speaker 2: require an answer?
Speaker 3: Yeah, so that's something. Yeah, I mean you ask a
Speaker 3: really good question what is the truth? And I think,
Speaker 3: you know, I think people need to question everything they
Speaker 3: told to, you know, to verify its source and to
Speaker 3: verify this scientific rigorousness and just to not you know,
Speaker 3: we sew brainwashed we need to start thinking critically and
Speaker 3: start using our brain rather than believing everything we told,
Speaker 3: and then hopefully we will come to some kind of
Speaker 3: a truth.
Speaker 2: Indeed, so finally, Robert Malone, are you friends with him?
Speaker 3: I know Robert quite well. We equaint I would say
Speaker 3: we acquaintances rather than good friends.
Speaker 2: Sometimes that's better. He published, and by the way, I've
Speaker 2: got I have to say this. I can't accept that
Speaker 2: he writes everything himself, or be it accept that he
Speaker 2: agrees with it and may even commission it. But he
Speaker 2: published a fifty seven page because I got it here.
Speaker 2: I printed it a great expense to myself. He published
Speaker 2: only a few weeks ago, Packed for the Future, the
Speaker 2: Socialist Manifesto fifty seven pages, and it begins September twenty
Speaker 2: twenty four. The United Nations will be meeting in New
Speaker 2: York to discuss and vote on three new treaties. The
Speaker 2: first to be discussed is called the Pact for Future.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to insult you all by stating that
Speaker 2: or what I think about this document without having presented
Speaker 2: the treaty for all of you to pursue. Keep in
Speaker 2: mind that this is just one of three treaties or
Speaker 2: packs up for votes and signing at the UN end
Speaker 2: of September. That's by way of introduction to what I've
Speaker 2: received again. Only this morning, the UN just adopted the
Speaker 2: Pact for the Future, which lays the foundation for a
Speaker 2: new global order. That's what it says, a new global order.
Speaker 2: You have any comment to make on the UN, the
Speaker 2: who and where they're headed.
Speaker 3: I think it's terrifying, and I think we should be
Speaker 3: do whatever we can to speak to people in government,
Speaker 3: speak of people in power, Speak to our legislators that
Speaker 3: the WH and the UN need to take their fingers
Speaker 3: out of our lives, you know, that they should not
Speaker 3: be dictating how we live, where we love, what we eat.
Speaker 3: And I think this one power government is a very
Speaker 3: dangerous slippery slope and we should be outraged.
Speaker 2: And yet it hardly gets any mention, any discussion in
Speaker 2: the mainstream media. It is something that seems to be
Speaker 2: or seems to fit in with the general acceptance of
Speaker 2: what is yet to come.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Absolutely, I think it's imperative that more people are
Speaker 3: aware of where the U, N and w H is going,
Speaker 3: and we need to do whatever we can to prevent.
Speaker 3: You know, we need to restore democracy we need to
Speaker 3: restore human dignity, we need to restore you know, human individuality,
Speaker 3: and we're going down a terrible slippery slope.
Speaker 2: Well you said, we not just on a pass. You're
Speaker 2: well on the on the way to shall I say,
Speaker 2: the nation that is to be admired and you are
Speaker 2: to be congratulated. Thank you so much for the time
Speaker 2: you've given. Glad you made it to New Zealand, and
Speaker 2: I hope the rest of your journey and your speeches
Speaker 2: are successful.
Speaker 3: Well, thank you kindly. It's been a delight speaking with
Speaker 3: you and I've really enjoyed it, and so thank you kindly.
Speaker 2: My pleasure, and I speak on behalf of some considerable
Speaker 2: thousands of people.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much, Paul, thank you, my friend.
Speaker 2: All Right, two hundred and fifty seven is the podcast number,
Speaker 2: missus producer. Here we are Layton. Hello, So from James
Speaker 2: once again Professor Jeffreysax with a clear exposition of the
Speaker 2: current state of the world, together with some very relevant
Speaker 2: and relatively recent economic history. We hope that you can
Speaker 2: find the time to listen because it helps to understand
Speaker 2: the dangerous debarcles in progress. It seems almost everywhere we
Speaker 2: can only hope that in the not two distant future,
Speaker 2: the US realizes the mess it's made of the last
Speaker 2: eighty years and has a sea change in its policy outlook.
Speaker 2: For one thing, the US dollar will soon no longer
Speaker 2: be capable of being weaponized, and for another, the US,
Speaker 2: if it's going to survive as the same democratic society
Speaker 2: that it has been, it must put its energies, all
Speaker 2: of them, into paying down its colossal debt and drastically
Speaker 2: overhauling its governance so that it is once more governed
Speaker 2: by elected officials instead of the faceless, unelect did suits
Speaker 2: currently heading the country toward economic and nuclear arm again,
Speaker 2: the world will be a very different place, peaceful and
Speaker 2: prosperous instead of featuring constant belligerents and ongoing financial crises.
Speaker 2: Once again, with all the best wishes and lots of
Speaker 2: love from us. In El Raetiro, Columbia.
Speaker 4: Leighton Rod says, it's been a while since I tuned
Speaker 4: into your podcasts. Perhaps the relief of last October's election
Speaker 4: results swayed me to have a break thinking Labour's toxic
Speaker 4: ideology no longer had to be discussed on your show anymore,
Speaker 4: But there are many other toxic ideologies in this world
Speaker 4: to discuss, unfortunately, and one of them is Kamala Harris
Speaker 4: and whether she is a Marxist or something else. Your
Speaker 4: guest professor Michael Recton World was more of the view
Speaker 4: she was a globalist and a Marxist, though both positions
Speaker 4: can be interchangeable in my view, So the verdict might
Speaker 4: still be out on just what exactly is Kamala's ideology.
Speaker 4: But what is evident to me is Kamala Harris's disdain
Speaker 4: for the traditional family unit and America's Christian heritage, which
Speaker 4: are the backbones of American society. If Kamala wins the presidency,
Speaker 4: these two sacred values will be weakened even more. Maybe
Speaker 4: Kamala is just an empty head idealist who stands for
Speaker 4: everything other than America's traditional values.
Speaker 2: That was from rod Ron. Certainly can't. I cannot agree
Speaker 2: with the last sentence apart from the airhead part from Paul,
Speaker 2: and this is producing this is you want to share
Speaker 2: this with me because it's so long. I'll read the
Speaker 2: first half and you can read the same. Okay, I
Speaker 2: think it might be worthy pre covid I considered myself,
Speaker 2: writes Paul, conservative realist with a more than passing interest
Speaker 2: in US politics and an admiration for what Trump managed
Speaker 2: to do to get himself elected in twenty sixteen. I
Speaker 2: also had a significant disdain for a deerm and the
Speaker 2: collective of incompetent I dealists who formed her government post COVID.
Speaker 2: My family considered me a conspiracy theorist. I, like Trump,
Speaker 2: called bs On the man made climate change hoax and
Speaker 2: was never COVID vaxed the rabbit hole trifector. When it
Speaker 2: comes to the current election cycle in the US, I
Speaker 2: listen with interest to you and your guests when comments
Speaker 2: are made around the outcome and some speculation whether there
Speaker 2: is a parallel between Adern and Harris personally, I don't
Speaker 2: see one as far as influencing the election result. A
Speaker 2: Dern never won that election. Bill English did, but the
Speaker 2: two comrades are definitely cut from the same cloth when
Speaker 2: it comes to being communist, progressive grifters, and economically illiterate.
Speaker 2: A Trump victory is imperative, but the deep state can't
Speaker 2: allow it. Trump knows too much from his first term
Speaker 2: for a second go round and is a legitimate threat
Speaker 2: to them. They know that he won't make the same
Speaker 2: mistake twice, will make that plural mistakes twice and the
Speaker 2: construct of a Trump cabinet. I await with anticipation Kennedy
Speaker 2: in charge of the CDCFDA is or the CIA, Gavin
Speaker 2: and Musk actively involved in a realignment. Hold on while
Speaker 2: I grab some popcorn. I do not believe the current
Speaker 2: nat can take it over there.
Speaker 4: I don't believe the current mainstream polls. And think back
Speaker 4: to podcast two four nine with Patrick Basham. Oh, I
Speaker 4: don't believe the current mainstream poles and think back to
Speaker 4: podcast two four nine with Patrick Basham. Are you going
Speaker 4: to have them back for an update towards the end
Speaker 4: of October? By the way, what I see and what
Speaker 4: we're being told don't gell. Look at the visibly increased
Speaker 4: support Trump is receiving from the rank and file teamsters,
Speaker 4: the firemen, and predict police, border security, black Hispanic men,
Speaker 4: to name just a few voting blocks. The allegedly close
Speaker 4: poles don't make sense. In twenty sixteen, the Poles had
Speaker 4: Trump seventeen points behind in Wisconsin, and he won there.
Speaker 4: We may not see such a discrepancy example this time around,
Speaker 4: but equally, the legacy media outlets will not and cannot
Speaker 4: show Trump leading against Harris, as it would not reflect
Speaker 4: their efforts and narrative to turn her from the least
Speaker 4: popular VP ever a month ago into some sort of
Speaker 4: savior of mankind. Sadly, there are many who blindly believe
Speaker 4: the propaganda.
Speaker 2: JD.
Speaker 4: Vance said an Attacker Carlson interview this week that their
Speaker 4: own internal polling shows them winning. He would say that,
Speaker 4: and I believe him. The Trump groundswell is undeniable. However,
Speaker 4: I am very concerned that a Trump victory cannot be
Speaker 4: tolerated by those with everything to lose, and the assassination
Speaker 4: attempts will continue until they get it right. Finally, anyone
Speaker 4: who thinks that Harris wasn't fed the questions beforehand at
Speaker 4: the debate is delusional.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Compare her coherent rehearsed answers at the debate after weeks
Speaker 4: of preparation to her Oprah interview and other post debate
Speaker 4: friendly softball interviews resulting in nonsensical word salad answers. And
Speaker 4: you don't need to be Einstein to see it doesn't
Speaker 4: add up in my view, if Trump can make it
Speaker 4: to In my view, if Trump can make it to
Speaker 4: November the fifth, unscathed. He will be forty seven and
Speaker 4: a clear electoral college victory, as I believe the turnout
Speaker 4: for him will be too big to rig. I thoroughly
Speaker 4: enjoy your work each week, long Matte continue, Thank you
Speaker 4: so much, Paul, Well.
Speaker 2: Very good, bit long, but very good. I thought there
Speaker 2: was a clever way to deal with myself.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: As for Patrick Basham, if my memory serves me correctly,
Speaker 2: he will be on next week and he will be
Speaker 2: on wait for it, election day. Election day is a
Speaker 2: Wednesday our time, so on that day I anticipate the
Speaker 2: podcast could be a little late in coming out, but
Speaker 2: think about it, it usually goes out mid afternoon. Now
Speaker 2: in mid afternoon, it's around what time is it about
Speaker 2: eleven pm on the East coast, So it could all
Speaker 2: slide together very well, but her final details are yet
Speaker 2: to be sorted. I saw Carmela Harris and her running
Speaker 2: mate at a rally coming together on stage in what
Speaker 2: could only be called a political pantomime, and it was
Speaker 2: embarrassing to see, you think, I thought it couldn't get worse,
Speaker 2: but it did. When they spoke, they seemed to talk
Speaker 2: about themselves first in such a cringe worthy way, so much.
Speaker 2: They had trouble getting past it with any coherent thought.
Speaker 2: It was like watching a comedy show on TV where
Speaker 2: you guess whether the speaker is lying or not or
Speaker 2: just doesn't know what they're talking about. Now, when Carmala
Speaker 2: Harris's face lights up in an interview, you just know
Speaker 2: she's going to repeat one of her fables and throw
Speaker 2: in some fabrications as an extra good at that, Carmala
Speaker 2: Harris and her running mate can't seem to get their
Speaker 2: message across adequately of what's good for the country like Trump.
Speaker 2: Maybe the Democrats going woke might go broke. Oh, there's
Speaker 2: more and more people coming out of the woodwork on
Speaker 2: both sides of this. I have some references to pass
Speaker 2: on to you.
Speaker 4: Shortly, latent Jin says, I believe you'll appreciate this short
Speaker 4: one minute talk TV UK video where consumer expert Adrian
Speaker 4: Mills gave one of the greatest arguments for why using
Speaker 4: cash helps you save money and it's sure and sure
Speaker 4: it holds its value compared to using cashless methods which
Speaker 4: banks profit from. In case you have trouble opening the video,
Speaker 4: here is the transcript. So this is what the consumer
Speaker 4: experts says. I'll tell you why it's so important that
Speaker 4: people use cash. For example, I have in front of
Speaker 4: me a good old fifty pound note. I owe you
Speaker 4: fifty pounds. I pay you. You go to the hairdresser,
Speaker 4: You pay your fifty pounds. The hairdresser goes to the cafe,
Speaker 4: pays the coffee shop owner fifty pounds. The cafe owner
Speaker 4: goes to the restaurant owner fifty pounds. The restaurant pays
Speaker 4: for the linen cleaning fifty pounds. The value of the
Speaker 4: fifty pounds remains fifty pounds. If, however, I pay you
Speaker 4: with a credit card straight away, I'm devaluing that fifty
Speaker 4: pounds because I am paying three percent on average interest
Speaker 4: to a bank or a society that gives me that card,
Speaker 4: which is the equivalent of one pound fifty. You then
Speaker 4: follow that through and everywhere you go, the hairdresser, the
Speaker 4: coffee shop, the restaurant. If you're paying the card, you're
Speaker 4: losing one pound fifty every time. So after thirty transactions
Speaker 4: with cash, you've still got fifty pounds in bad. If
Speaker 4: you used your credit card, the value is now five
Speaker 4: pounds because you've paid the bank forty five pounds in fees,
Speaker 4: and that's why the banks want to encourage you to
Speaker 4: go cashless. Don't allow it to happen. This is why,
Speaker 4: says Jin, we shouldn't allow banks or politicians to coerce
Speaker 4: us into becoming a cashless and CBDC society. Cash is king,
Speaker 4: cash is freedom. Thanks to your constant reminder Latent regarding
Speaker 4: the importance of having cash in hand, I've always had
Speaker 4: about two hundred dollars cash in my wallet just in case.
Speaker 2: And I congratulate you on that too. And I think
Speaker 2: that at the very end of our discussion today, the
Speaker 2: good doctor gave us some thinking material. Well, like I say,
Speaker 2: right at the very end, he's he's very concerned about
Speaker 2: where things are heading. And these not alone, missus producer.
Speaker 2: I've got some two more, but they're so short.
Speaker 4: You do short one and I was a short one.
Speaker 2: Oh you okay? Right from Chris. Since education contributes to
Speaker 2: your podcast subject matter, you may be interested in Twin
Speaker 2: Oaks charter school, proposed to start next year in green
Speaker 2: Lane and Auckland. The main difference is the hybrid approach.
Speaker 2: You know how that works where parents are the teachers
Speaker 2: for two days a week and the classroom learning for
Speaker 2: the other three and then gives me some contact details.
Speaker 2: If I'm want to take it any further, it may
Speaker 2: well do. And from Jim, I'm looking forward to hearing
Speaker 2: your USA electoral discussion that no doubt you will have
Speaker 2: love all your broadcast. Jim, appreciate that. Thank you and
Speaker 2: you'll get it.
Speaker 4: And later. From James, I've just listened to your fascinating
Speaker 4: interview with Michael recton World. This was the first I
Speaker 4: had heard about the ABC's whistleblower regarding the debate. I
Speaker 4: did a Google search on the topic, and surprise, surprise,
Speaker 4: despite lots of overseas coverage, I could not find any
Speaker 4: local reports on the matter, despite it being big news.
Speaker 4: Maybe I haven't looked hard enough, so I'll eat my
Speaker 4: hat if I'm wrong. Otherwise, it's just another reason to
Speaker 4: look for information and use from other sources and take
Speaker 4: what we see at six o'clock each night with a
Speaker 4: grain of salt.
Speaker 2: That's from James, James, Thank you, missus, producer, thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Until next week, Thanks Leighton, it will last week. In
Speaker 2: the Putting Together Podcast two fifty six, I made yet
Speaker 2: another comment on how much of interest there was that
Speaker 2: particular morning that I couldn't cover. Couple that with inquiries
Speaker 2: about various issues and what books i'd recommend, it occurred
Speaker 2: that I could and should share information more willingly. Protecting
Speaker 2: your sources has always been well important to varying degrees
Speaker 2: in the media, but it no longer matters so much.
Speaker 2: I came to the conclusion that information sharing is not
Speaker 2: any beneficial, but is necessary. Well, I've known that for
Speaker 2: a while, but haven't activated on it as much as
Speaker 2: I might have. Well, of course, being first with well
Speaker 2: being first, people like to be first, doesn't matter what
Speaker 2: it's in. Competition builds when somebody invents something, or says something,
Speaker 2: or writes something or whatever, and you lose track of
Speaker 2: who was responsible for it. But being first is not vital,
Speaker 2: but it helps. I decided that I would introduce a well,
Speaker 2: not a segment, but maybe it is. Maybe we'll call
Speaker 2: it that, in which I will share some sources of information,
Speaker 2: sources of opinion, fact whatever that I think will be
Speaker 2: of interest to well some, not everybody all at once,
Speaker 2: but some from week to week. And as it happens,
Speaker 2: the first email that I opened up this morning was
Speaker 2: from Jeffrey Tucker. This wasn't personal this is Jeffrey Tucker
Speaker 2: writing his column for the Epic Times. But the interesting
Speaker 2: thing to me was I believed that it was only
Speaker 2: last week that I read a letter from a listener,
Speaker 2: a very loyal one, i might add, who commented that
Speaker 2: Jeffrey Tucker and George Friedman were two people that had
Speaker 2: helped direct his understanding and appreciation of geopolitics and other
Speaker 2: matters of life. And what is the column in the
Speaker 2: Epic Times called from Jeffrey Tucker? Why is the age
Speaker 2: of information disappointing intriguing her? It must have been remarkable
Speaker 2: to be alive between eighteen eighty and nineteen ten. The
Speaker 2: explosion of technology, then called the practical arts was astonishing.
Speaker 2: In the course of this time, we saw the commercializer
Speaker 2: of steel that made possible huge bridges to transverse large
Speaker 2: bodies of water for the first time, and allow the
Speaker 2: building of skyscrapers that change cityscapes. And suddenly you could
Speaker 2: go anywhere and do anything. Then there's a whole list
Speaker 2: of things that wants a short list. But of things
Speaker 2: that he refers to, there was the advent of electricity
Speaker 2: to light up cities and homes. There was internal combustion
Speaker 2: that allowed for motor cars that change travel and the
Speaker 2: practice of farming. There was flight, which made not fleeing aeroplanes,
Speaker 2: which made the seemingly impossible possible. Communications changed first with
Speaker 2: the telegraph and then the telehne, which introduced the real
Speaker 2: first upgrade in information spread since the handwritten letter carried
Speaker 2: on horseback. And there was so much more, including indoor plumbing,
Speaker 2: the wide availability of books, the bringing of precision time
Speaker 2: into the home with commercial clocks and then watches, the
Speaker 2: recording and eventual broadcast of sale, and so much more. Now,
Speaker 2: the point that Jeffrey Tucker makes is a very important
Speaker 2: and that is that information doesn't mean wisdom that takes
Speaker 2: more input. But the important fact of this particular column
Speaker 2: this morning, I think is obvious. So every week as
Speaker 2: part of the podcast, I'll introduce you to some sources
Speaker 2: that I think are worthy of follow up entirely up
Speaker 2: to you, obviously, Let's begin with one of my favorites,
Speaker 2: of course, Victor Davis Hansen. In just a second. First,
Speaker 2: here is a headline over seven hundred deep status join
Speaker 2: Dick Cheney, Iran and IRS union in endorsing Harris in
Speaker 2: a surprise to No. One seven hundred and forty one
Speaker 2: high ranking national security officials have endorsed Kamala Harris's bid
Speaker 2: for the White House, with some suggesting that former President
Speaker 2: Trump has a scary authoritarian streak. Now that's only by
Speaker 2: way of introduction. I'm not going to read anymore, but
Speaker 2: let's get to let's get to a reaction to this
Speaker 2: from Victor Davis Hanson. Are so called experts and their
Speaker 2: silly group speak letters. One of the most prepasitorous recent
Speaker 2: trends has been the political use of supposed expert letters
Speaker 2: and declarations of support from so called authorities. These pretentious
Speaker 2: testimonies of purported professionalism are different from the usual inane
Speaker 2: candidate endorsements from celebrities and politicos. Instead, well, if you
Speaker 2: want to find out you you'll find it at am
Speaker 2: greatness dot com. Am greatness dot com are so called
Speaker 2: experts and their silly group speak letters. Published on the
Speaker 2: twenty third of September, well worthy of digesting then speaking
Speaker 2: of media and sharing information and getting it right, etc.
Speaker 2: There's an article ausored by Frank Mela m E.
Speaker 3: L E.
Speaker 2: Frank Mela via Real Clear Politics, Young America is right
Speaker 2: to reject traditional news. It's become a truism in the
Speaker 2: past few years that younger people get their news predominantly,
Speaker 2: if not entirely, from social media. Turns out it's true,
Speaker 2: but it may not be an information crisis as some
Speaker 2: of you would have thought. Of course, as an old
Speaker 2: time newspaper man, I was one of those who thought
Speaker 2: that the country was not being served well by this
Speaker 2: increasing dependency on unvettered news sources and the implied repudiation
Speaker 2: of traditional media. And I'll leave that one there too,
Speaker 2: Frank melay Mi E l E real clear politics. All
Speaker 2: you need to do, really is is search young America
Speaker 2: is right to reject traditional news. Frank Mila next, and
Speaker 2: just this concentrates mainly on aspects of the United States
Speaker 2: and the influence. And this is the important part as
Speaker 2: far as I'm concerned, the influence that America has. It
Speaker 2: is still the richest country in the world. It is
Speaker 2: the most influential country in the world when it chooses
Speaker 2: to be the moment they're lacking somewhat in a number
Speaker 2: of areas. The Dangers of Uncontrolled Immigration by Raphael Madagi B. A. R.
Speaker 2: D Aji brd Aji as of June seven, twenty twenty four,
Speaker 2: for the first time in the history of Spain, the
Speaker 2: prison population of young people born abroad exceeds that of
Speaker 2: young Spaniards in prison at a ratio of sixty to forty.
Speaker 2: If we include those born in Spain with Spanish nationality
Speaker 2: but to foreign parents, that ratio pockets to over seventy
Speaker 2: over thirty. Now, this is a six page article, the
Speaker 2: point being that it covers much more than you might expect,
Speaker 2: and there are lessons in it for every country on Earth,
Speaker 2: well every country that people want to move to in
Speaker 2: great numbers. The dangers of uncontrolled immigration a Spain and
Speaker 2: Europe are suffering from a far worse case than countries
Speaker 2: like New Zealand. But New Zealand has things to learn.
Speaker 2: We have things to learn from the experience of these
Speaker 2: other events in other countries. America and the Future of
Speaker 2: Globalism by Edward Ring, again from am Greatness. If globalization
Speaker 2: is the economic integration of nations in a world where
Speaker 2: technology has all but a raised once formidable barriers to
Speaker 2: long distance communication and transportation, globalism is its cultural and
Speaker 2: ideological counterpart. Globalism, like communism or neol liberalism, is beautiful.
Speaker 2: Is beautiful. You might walk there when described in these
Speaker 2: abstract terms and not rooted in the real world anyway. Again,
Speaker 2: it's a four page article, and again it's worthy of
Speaker 2: your reading. Stockman David who was involved first of all
Speaker 2: with the Reagan administration. Stockman, what the coming US election
Speaker 2: means for America's physical future. Now, why would I include that? Well, A,
Speaker 2: because it's interesting. Be because considering the US's importance in
Speaker 2: the world. It was in the financial world. It has
Speaker 2: an effect on the rest of the world, and that
Speaker 2: includes New Zealand of course. And these are things that
Speaker 2: I think we miss from time to time, the effect
Speaker 2: that something that happens in an important part of the
Speaker 2: world will have here you might you might fall into
Speaker 2: that category of missing the point, but some people do.
Speaker 2: And then finally, for this week, the un Machinery against
Speaker 2: Human Rights an article that runs eleven pages from the
Speaker 2: Brownstone Institute Brownstone dot org and co authored by our
Speaker 2: friend David Bell. And this is essential, I think for
Speaker 2: all of us to be aware of. I read everything
Speaker 2: that David Bell is responsible for. He's been on the podcast,
Speaker 2: as you would know, on three or four occasions, and
Speaker 2: he is a man of some considerable wisdom. He's Australian
Speaker 2: by the way, not American, or that he lives in
Speaker 2: Texas and on some occasions I'm envious. Would you like
Speaker 2: one more? The Sins of the Old Gray Lady or
Speaker 2: Why the Press Hates You? I may have made mention
Speaker 2: of this somewhere in a podcast in passing, but nevertheless,
Speaker 2: The Sins of the Gray Lady or Why the Press
Speaker 2: Hates You? Authored by j header p ed E r
Speaker 2: zay z An via Real Clear Politics, and the following
Speaker 2: is a chapter from the recently released book Against the
Speaker 2: Corporate Media. Forty two Ways the Press Hateship? Again worthy
Speaker 2: of attention or I wouldn't include it? There is one
Speaker 2: more September twelve. The Leviathan has not been tamed. The
Speaker 2: Leviathan has not been tamed. For forty years, US courts
Speaker 2: have deferred to unelected bureaucrats for the interpretation of ambiguous statutes.
Speaker 2: The principle of Chevron deference is the legal basis of
Speaker 2: the administrative state, the extra constitutional rule by experts that
Speaker 2: provides the legal framework and the worker day operations of
Speaker 2: the woke regime. You can see why I have thrown that,
Speaker 2: thrown that in. The Leviathan has not been tamed and
Speaker 2: we are in a position to be able to appreciate
Speaker 2: that now. I'd be very interested to hear from those
Speaker 2: of you who might follow up on any of those
Speaker 2: and whether or not you think this is worthy of
Speaker 2: a tension each week I do so I shall continue,
Speaker 2: but your your thoughts would be most welcome. Laton at
Speaker 2: newstalkzeb dot co dot nz or Carolyn at Newstalk zb
Speaker 2: dot co dot NZB. And I keep saying that we
Speaker 2: love getting your mail. That really takes us out for
Speaker 2: podcasts two hundred and fifty seven, So the only thing
Speaker 2: left to say is, as always, thank you for listening
Speaker 2: and we shall talk soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you for more from Newstalk ZEDB. Listen live on
Speaker 1: air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever
Speaker 1: you go with our podcast on iHeartRadio