Speaker 1: You're listening to a podcast from News Talks ed 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 now the Leighton Smith
Speaker 1: Podcast powered.
Speaker 2: By News Talks Ed.
Speaker 3: Well, this hasn't happened before. This is the first time
Speaker 3: that we have had a release on Christmas Day. So
Speaker 3: the second of our best of series through the holiday
Speaker 3: period and it's with David Bell. Now. This is an
Speaker 3: extensive interview with David on the expansion of the World
Speaker 3: Health Organization's powers and influence. He has worked for twenty
Speaker 3: years in biotech and international public health in numerous capacities,
Speaker 3: with over one hundred and twenty research publications. David explains
Speaker 3: why New Zealand and other countries should stand their ground
Speaker 3: and refrain from signing on to changes that the World
Speaker 3: Health Organization is looking for. It is a very important discussion.
Speaker 3: And then if you like what you hear, there is
Speaker 3: another very very good interview with David Bell in Podcasts
Speaker 3: two one hundred and sixty five. Just to do a
Speaker 3: search for the Latenessmith podcast two sixty five and it
Speaker 3: will find you in the meantime, I wish you an
Speaker 3: enjoyable listen of course, and Merry Christmas, and may everything
Speaker 3: be right.
Speaker 2: In your world.
Speaker 3: Layton Smith Leverix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to
Speaker 3: the highest quality. Leverix relieves hay fever and skin allergies
Speaker 3: or itchy skin. It's a dual action antihistamine and has
Speaker 3: a unique nasal decongested action. It's fast acting for fast relief,
Speaker 3: and it works in under an hour and lasts for
Speaker 3: over twenty four hours. Levers is a tiny tablet that
Speaker 3: unblocks the nose, deals with itchy eyes, and stops sneezing.
Speaker 3: Leverix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality.
Speaker 3: So next time you're in need of an effective antihistamine,
Speaker 3: call into the pharmacy and ask for Leverix l v
Speaker 3: rix Leverix and always read the label. Take as directed,
Speaker 3: and if symptoms persist, see your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland.
Speaker 3: David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public
Speaker 3: health physician a biotech consultant in global health. David is
Speaker 3: a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health
Speaker 3: Organization the WHO Program Head for Malaria and Febrile Diseases
Speaker 3: at the Foundation for Innovation of New Diagnostics in Geneva,
Speaker 3: and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global
Speaker 3: Good Fund in Bellevue in Washington State in the United States.
Speaker 3: He is also a guest on this podcast. Has been
Speaker 3: a guest on this podcast more than month twice, three
Speaker 3: maybe four times. And it's very good to welcome you back.
Speaker 3: I'm appreciative of the fact that you are here. Yeah,
Speaker 3: thanks for having me back late. It is always it is
Speaker 3: always a pleasure. I got to say what a quote.
Speaker 3: I want to quote a lot of things actually in
Speaker 3: this podcast, but let me start with an example of destructive,
Speaker 3: unaccountable bureaucratic overreach, which is part of what you opened
Speaker 3: up with for a column on Brownstone. An example, and
Speaker 3: I repeat it, of destructive, unaccountable bureaucratic overreach. Are you
Speaker 3: taking a stronger stance over I won't say against, but
Speaker 3: over the World Health Organization that.
Speaker 2: I don't think so. I think for the last four
Speaker 2: years I've been pointing out what is going on. I mean,
Speaker 2: in the end, you have an organization that has knowingly
Speaker 2: impoverished the world and that they absolutely knew what they're doing,
Speaker 2: and it's I think most of your viewers probably don't
Speaker 2: understand the extent of an additional one hundred million plus
Speaker 2: people intovere poverty, food deprivation, up to ten million girls
Speaker 2: in additional in child marriage, increased child labor, a huge
Speaker 2: increase in national debt in low income countries, which will
Speaker 2: translate into them being forced to comply with global predators
Speaker 2: who prey on such in debted countries. And this is
Speaker 2: what has happened. I think now it's interesting because that
Speaker 2: there's a chance at least something may change slightly with
Speaker 2: the US election. So it's but I think those words
Speaker 2: are not out of sync with what I've and others
Speaker 2: have been saying for quite a while. I was going
Speaker 2: to show is a massive organization, is a huge bureaucracy,
Speaker 2: it's grossly out of touch with reality, and it is
Speaker 2: deliberately misleading countries.
Speaker 3: I was going to raise the American election result with
Speaker 3: you a little later, So let's just park it for
Speaker 3: the moment, because there is probably a little more than
Speaker 3: than just this to discuss. I want to quote you
Speaker 3: this particular headline, followed by another one. New Zealand first
Speaker 3: fears over WHO regulations are misplaced, robust checks and balances
Speaker 3: already exist. And then the second headline is Shane Jones
Speaker 3: world Health Organization needs reform not fappening. Now, these are
Speaker 3: two at variants commentaries. One is written by journalists, the
Speaker 3: other is written by well politician. Which one of those
Speaker 3: is closer to the reality.
Speaker 2: Or clearly the second one I think. I was on
Speaker 2: this program where we were talking about the work at
Speaker 2: the University of Leeds, where we're looking at the international
Speaker 2: pandemic agenda, the push by WHO, World Bank G twenty,
Speaker 2: et cetera to increase funding from countries from taxpayers for
Speaker 2: this rapidly growing bureaucracy around pandemics and supposedly increasing pandemic risk,
Speaker 2: and where we've shown conclusively that this is well as
Speaker 2: WHO would term it, misinformation. They are twisting the reality
Speaker 2: around infectious disease pandemic risk and the costs of dealing
Speaker 2: with it and the effect that would have. But journalists,
Speaker 2: I think, by enlarge, don't dig into things like that anymore.
Speaker 2: They just assume if the World Bank or that G
Speaker 2: twenty says something, it must be true. So I'm not
Speaker 2: defending journalists, but I think that's probably where those sorts
Speaker 2: of responses come from. So I mean, when that is happening,
Speaker 2: when the who is doing that as well, then clearly
Speaker 2: what Shane journesaid makes sense that the who is it
Speaker 2: is a huge it's not just a who, but the
Speaker 2: whole wintershal health bureaucracy is it's tens of thousands of people.
Speaker 2: Now it is a huge and rapidly growing industry that
Speaker 2: lives mostly off taxpayer money and mostly in very wealthy countries,
Speaker 2: and as we saw in COVID, is now no longer
Speaker 2: really helping, but is increasing the risk support health and
Speaker 2: impoverishing people, concentrating wealth in the pharmaceutical companies that have
Speaker 2: very much become influential in it. What these organizations should
Speaker 2: be doing is helping countries when they're asked to build
Speaker 2: capacity so that we don't need these organizations anymore. So
Speaker 2: that's the op they shouldn't be growing. There was abo
Speaker 2: IS set up in the late nineteen forties. It was
Speaker 2: helping countries that came out of colonialism to sort of
Speaker 2: get on their feet deal with major diseases like malaria, tuberculosis,
Speaker 2: and now those what should what should be happening is US.
Speaker 2: Countries should be getting on their feet. We shouldn't need
Speaker 2: THEO anymore. In anything like you as a large organization,
Speaker 2: you can have a place where countries meet and so on,
Speaker 2: but there isn't a place for a growing international health bureaucracy.
Speaker 2: If we are getting better at medicine in countries, and
Speaker 2: we're building capacity, and sanitation is getting better, and nutrition
Speaker 2: is getting better, et cetera, it should be. And if
Speaker 2: that's still not the case, if we are seventy or
Speaker 2: eighty years into WHO and they are seeing that problems
Speaker 2: are growing and not reducing despite all the improvement in
Speaker 2: technology and everything in the world, then clearly they're a
Speaker 2: gross failure anyway, So we should be looking at something else.
Speaker 3: Since twenty twenty, the WHO has orchestrated and condoned one
Speaker 3: of the most devastating assaults on individual and societal health
Speaker 3: the world has seen. At the behest of highly conflicted sponsors,
Speaker 3: this international bureaucracy promoted policies that overwhelmingly harmed the world's
Speaker 3: most disadvantage. The organization turned on those whom it had
Speaker 3: been set up to serve. Returning to the pre World
Speaker 3: War II mindset of technocratic authoritarianism that characterize public health
Speaker 3: in the area of eugenics, colonialism, and European fascism. Now,
Speaker 3: those last three terms are things that those of the
Speaker 3: left regale against constantly. And yet here we are, and
Speaker 3: here you are writing that about an organization that we
Speaker 3: all know. The bureaucracies either live by growth or die
Speaker 3: by the growth. So is it fair to say that
Speaker 3: they're simply thinking of survival.
Speaker 2: The thing of growth? Yeah, So the whos are organization
Speaker 2: of thousands of people, and there's still people there who
Speaker 2: are working hard and doing useful stuff. It's not like
Speaker 2: the whole organization is completely corrupted, but I think at
Speaker 2: the top of the policy level it has been for
Speaker 2: the last several years. And you know, I mentioned that
Speaker 2: some of the numbers in COVID. Then the abandonment of
Speaker 2: science in COVID, which was gross, the abandonment of pretending
Speaker 2: that mass work and social distinccing and pretending that you
Speaker 2: should close stop travel when you've got the same virus
Speaker 2: on both hends of the trouble path, and the essential
Speaker 2: completely disregard for human immunity, natural immunity. We had the
Speaker 2: most expensive of public health program in Africa, or mass
Speaker 2: vaccination when who knew from their own studies that almost
Speaker 2: the whole population already had effective immunity against COVID from
Speaker 2: natural infection. So it's an organization which there's thousands of people.
Speaker 2: If you're in an organization for twenty or thirty years,
Speaker 2: inevitably you sort of lose the edge of the good
Speaker 2: intent you might have gone in with, and you become
Speaker 2: you want your pension, which is very extremely good at
Speaker 2: who so you want to hang out for that, So
Speaker 2: you want to comply. You have your kids in high
Speaker 2: school or college or whatever, and they get a seventy
Speaker 2: five percent education subsidy, get a rental subsidy, you get
Speaker 2: very good salary. On top of all this, you get
Speaker 2: business class travel, five star hotels or the rest of it.
Speaker 2: So you inevitably, almost everyone, I think, start to think
Speaker 2: that you're one, you're really important, more important than other
Speaker 2: people because you've paid so well when you travel in
Speaker 2: important aircraft seats and get picked up by cars with
Speaker 2: a blue badge on the door. And secondly, oh, you
Speaker 2: see it in all institutions. I think the role of
Speaker 2: the institution or the existence and the reputation of the
Speaker 2: institution becomes your primary focus because you think that the
Speaker 2: world needs your institution and therefore you must protect it.
Speaker 2: So you know, this is the sort of thing that
Speaker 2: is the effect of the Catholic Church, for instance, with
Speaker 2: with the cover up of child sexual abuse in the past,
Speaker 2: and you see the same thing in the UN actually
Speaker 2: for exactly the same issue. Or really the Human Rights
Speaker 2: Council has been guilty of this in Central African Republic
Speaker 2: about ten years ago. So you tend to put your
Speaker 2: organization first and not the supposed goal of the organization.
Speaker 2: And yeah, I don't know of any bureaucracy anywhere that
Speaker 2: has worked to put itself out of existence, because that
Speaker 2: means losing your salary, losing the salary of your team.
Speaker 2: But if you're an international organization that is a servant
Speaker 2: of countries and a servant of populations and your job
Speaker 2: is to build their capacity, that is actually what you
Speaker 2: should do. So I can imagine you could structu an
Speaker 2: organization to do that. It's probably something where people can
Speaker 2: only stay five or ten years and they have to
Speaker 2: rotate out anyway, so it doesn't become their permanent home.
Speaker 2: But once you allow an organization to become a permanent
Speaker 2: home for a large bureaucracy. It's not going to work
Speaker 2: its way out of assistance. It's going to look to grow,
Speaker 2: because that's just what human institutions do. And in Who's case,
Speaker 2: to grow meant throwing away essentially a lot of the
Speaker 2: conflict of interests rules that they had in the past
Speaker 2: and getting to bed with large corporations and private sector investors,
Speaker 2: and so about twenty five percent of their budget now
Speaker 2: is directly from or directly from private sector, and most
Speaker 2: of their budget, whether from countries or private sector, is
Speaker 2: specified so that the funder tells you what you would
Speaker 2: do with that money. That's not how Who started. It
Speaker 2: was supposed to be an organization where technical expertise, at
Speaker 2: the request of countries would be used to address the
Speaker 2: needs of those countries. It's become, through its budget, an
Speaker 2: organization that follows the instructions of those who are giving
Speaker 2: up money. And that happens because you keep thinking more
Speaker 2: money will be good, and you're you know you're capable
Speaker 2: of handing in the conflict of interest bit and you
Speaker 2: won't be corrupted at sea, but of course you are,
Speaker 2: because you know that to get refunded next year, you
Speaker 2: have to please that funder. So when I worked in WHO,
Speaker 2: I saw this growing. I started in about two thousand
Speaker 2: and two worked there for about eight or ten years,
Speaker 2: and this was a period particularly where private foundations became
Speaker 2: very influential, where the probably private partnerships alongside WHO grew
Speaker 2: up and became influential on it. And the COVID response
Speaker 2: is the inevitable result of that. It was essentially restructuring
Speaker 2: response to outbreaks in order to maximize profit through mass
Speaker 2: vaccination forever a disease that almost really almost no one
Speaker 2: should have been needed to be vaccinated. So the reason
Speaker 2: for that, and the reason they abandoned their old guidelines
Speaker 2: and did that was because that was what they needed
Speaker 2: to do to please their funders. So it's WHO is
Speaker 2: a tool of others. It's supposed to be a tool
Speaker 2: of countries, so it should be a temporary tool until
Speaker 2: the countries stand on their own feet. Has become a
Speaker 2: tool of the pharmaceutical industry and biotech and those who
Speaker 2: invest in it. Yeah, so I think you know Shane
Speaker 2: Jones's variety. It is not contributing. Now, there's no reason
Speaker 2: for it to grow because actually infectious disease mortality has
Speaker 2: been steadily declining despite all the hype, and over the
Speaker 2: last many decades the mortality from outbreaks and from pandemics
Speaker 2: has been declining. So COVID was an outlier which very
Speaker 2: likely was not a natural outbreak, and certainly many of
Speaker 2: the deaths from covid iatrogenic. There's really little doubt about that.
Speaker 2: With the mass use of drugs like rendeser bear and
Speaker 2: very early intubation early on in the pandemic, so people panicked,
Speaker 2: they do that. That happened because there was a huge
Speaker 2: media operation to make people panic. Then the now mortality
Speaker 2: is almost zero, and most of that is from people
Speaker 2: gaining well one from people gaining natural immunity too, because
Speaker 2: if you just leave it as you would treat a
Speaker 2: common cold, then for the vast majority of the population,
Speaker 2: that'll be what it is. So it was used as
Speaker 2: a tool to please these funders. But apart from that,
Speaker 2: there is very little in the way of out breaks astray,
Speaker 2: the mass cholor of mortality, the plague, that yellow fever
Speaker 2: and so on. We have very small outbreaks. Now these
Speaker 2: are things of the past, so there's no good reason
Speaker 2: for the who to be growing at all. It should
Speaker 2: be shrinking.
Speaker 3: But it's not going to.
Speaker 2: It's not going to unless there's a radical change in
Speaker 2: the way it's run. And it is hard to see
Speaker 2: how that would happen because an organization that you've got
Speaker 2: to do that change to a large extent through people
Speaker 2: there who would be extremely resistant.
Speaker 3: I know that we've discussed this before from one aspect anyway,
Speaker 3: but let me let me just raise it again. What
Speaker 3: would be the on going back to the conflict between
Speaker 3: Shane Jones, just to use this as an example, and journalists,
Speaker 3: because the journalists are pretty much all the same. They're
Speaker 3: the same over the over the American election as well.
Speaker 3: They can't help themselves. But if New Zealand were to
Speaker 3: not participate in the changes that are being made by
Speaker 3: the World Health Organization, what would be the downside?
Speaker 2: None For New Zealand. It would save some money and
Speaker 2: it would not be essentially forced to build a large
Speaker 2: surveillance network to find viral variant and then risk you know,
Speaker 2: being having to lock down and destroy your economy again
Speaker 2: to assuage the needs of people in Geneva. So there
Speaker 2: are plenty of diseases for New Zealanders to deal with.
Speaker 2: Most people die of cancer, heart disease, cutting vascular disease,
Speaker 2: et cetera. There are still significant rheumatic heart disease and
Speaker 2: other infection based mortality in all populations, include particularly indigenous
Speaker 2: populations around the Pacific and so on. There's plenty for
Speaker 2: New Zealand to do without participating in a sort of
Speaker 2: essentially fast this falsification of risk. So there's nothing that
Speaker 2: wouldn't matter unless you got to a situation where the
Speaker 2: World Bank and the IMF, who are very on board
Speaker 2: with this agenda of who decided to punish New Zealand.
Speaker 2: And New Zealand now I think has a very large
Speaker 2: natural debt, which I think during the COVID response many countries,
Speaker 2: so that makes you much more vulnerable to that. So
Speaker 2: I mean, we'll come back to the US, but this
Speaker 2: is where it'll be interesting to see whether the international
Speaker 2: political situation has changed such that you can't be punished
Speaker 2: for that, because that will take a lot of the
Speaker 2: wind out of the sales of the pandemic.
Speaker 3: I don't know whether this is international or spreads wider
Speaker 3: than New Zealand, but I've noticed that the people who
Speaker 3: are deserving of some degree of condemnation over their behavior
Speaker 3: and attitude toward the administration of the last few years.
Speaker 3: Are the same people who are promoting and pushing hardest
Speaker 3: for New Zealand to participate in the latest changes being
Speaker 3: made by the Who Why would that be, do you think?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's a range of motivations. Some people,
Speaker 2: I think they do very well from funding from the
Speaker 2: pharmaceutical sector who are very much behind this agenda because
Speaker 2: they see hundreds of billions of dollars of profit in
Speaker 2: the long term. So they're doing what they're paid for
Speaker 2: probably or what they were. They're saying what they see
Speaker 2: as the best potential for them to get paid in
Speaker 2: the future. I think others, as we said that they
Speaker 2: genuinely believe this story, that they just assume that these
Speaker 2: large institutions would be telling the truth, that they have expertise,
Speaker 2: which they don't, and that they are you know, so
Speaker 2: they just go along and they're not going to stop
Speaker 2: and think deeply, because they've all been told that anyone
Speaker 2: who does is a right wing conspiracy theorist and they're
Speaker 2: likely to be vilified. So they you know, if you
Speaker 2: want a good job in global health, interational public health,
Speaker 2: you don't stick your head out like that. And I
Speaker 2: think others they may be realizing, they may dig down
Speaker 2: that this was a mistake for whatever the reason they
Speaker 2: went on in the first place. But it's really difficult
Speaker 2: to admit that. If you sort of stated to your
Speaker 2: reputation got really famous in the media, etc. On saying
Speaker 2: one thing, it's pretty difficult to backtrack then and say, well, actually,
Speaker 2: pandemics aren't at big risk to humankind, and you know,
Speaker 2: we have much bigger things to deal with. COVID was
Speaker 2: a huge overreaction. We should have known better, and let's
Speaker 2: do better now that there's not many people doing that.
Speaker 2: Most of the noise among those people is that we
Speaker 2: should have locked down faster and more strongly, which it's
Speaker 2: essentially saying we should destroy the economy more for longer.
Speaker 2: There is no good evidence that lockdowns did anything except
Speaker 2: slightly slow transmission. So it is different perhaps in island
Speaker 2: states where you know you could keep it out for longer.
Speaker 2: But now you haven't gained over the four years in
Speaker 2: terms of all cause mortality compared to other countries that
Speaker 2: didn't act in that way, So you're not better off
Speaker 2: over the four years, and you have an economy now
Speaker 2: that makes you very vulnerable and it is going to
Speaker 2: be have a huge impact on your ability to manage
Speaker 2: your nation's sealth in the future. So I think there's
Speaker 2: not much doubt that it was probably a mistake, even
Speaker 2: in New Zealand where there appeared to be as an
Speaker 2: island you could keep everyone out and sort of pretended
Speaker 2: the world didn't exist. But did I mention does? And
Speaker 2: you've wracked up a lot of problems?
Speaker 3: Did I mention? I? No, I didn't, And I don't
Speaker 3: think it was I don't think it was mentioned in
Speaker 3: the last conversation we had when you were here midyear.
Speaker 3: But they're still advertising for people to go get the job.
Speaker 3: Oh ye, get updated, Get updated, Get updated. The signs
Speaker 3: are out the front of the farmer.
Speaker 2: Distilling us as well from six months upwards here for
Speaker 2: there is zero evidence of benefit.
Speaker 3: Who preys hell is responsible for that in the States.
Speaker 2: In the States it's officially CDC, so they have their
Speaker 2: vaccine schedule for children and from six months up you're
Speaker 2: expected to get a series of MR and a injection
Speaker 2: which they know will concentrate in the over eas of
Speaker 2: young girls and in the livers and adrenal glands of
Speaker 2: girls and boys. Et cetera. And they know that healthy
Speaker 2: boys and girls and infants have almost near zero risk
Speaker 2: of dying of COVID sort of less than one million,
Speaker 2: so that there is no logic to any of this
Speaker 2: except the potential for profit and the sort of around
Speaker 2: that the sort of people who put their reputations want
Speaker 2: to preserve them, et cetera. So there's no public health
Speaker 2: rational public health basis that you can really follow to
Speaker 2: justify this.
Speaker 3: So the mRNA vaccine that accumulates in different parts of
Speaker 3: children's bodies does or can do how much damage.
Speaker 2: We don't know because we don't have long term studies
Speaker 2: on this, or even decent short term studies, so there's
Speaker 2: no even now there are no ongoing studies that they
Speaker 2: in adults. They after six months they lost the control group,
Speaker 2: so we can't compare. But we know the six months
Speaker 2: for the Maderna and Pisa trials. There was Maderna, the
Speaker 2: au course mortality was the same in the control group
Speaker 2: and the vaccinated group in Maderna. For Pisa, there were
Speaker 2: more deaths in the vaccinated group than the control group,
Speaker 2: so it was no effect or negative at six months.
Speaker 2: In adults, we don't have good data on any other
Speaker 2: age group. So for each new booster sort of type
Speaker 2: in in the US where they changed to a new variant,
Speaker 2: they test on I think is eight rats and they
Speaker 2: see if those rats produce antibodies, and they take that
Speaker 2: as the vaccine works, so that they don't even have
Speaker 2: human trials on the new versions now, so we have
Speaker 2: a passive and very flawed adverse reporting system of AIRS
Speaker 2: in the US and Australian New Zealand so on have
Speaker 2: their own. They show more high mortality and all severe
Speaker 2: effects reported for associated with the MRA with COVID injections
Speaker 2: then for all other vaccinations combined in the thirty years
Speaker 2: that FAIRS and the US has been running. So that's
Speaker 2: obviously a huge red flag normally, so to go and
Speaker 2: give that sort of thing to infants who like health
Speaker 2: infants don't die of COVID, you're almost never. But we know,
Speaker 2: we don't know what if you take, for instance, the
Speaker 2: accumulation of the ovaries. We know, and we knew before
Speaker 2: they started injecting anyone that the liber nanoparticles accumulates in
Speaker 2: the ovaries in rats. They've never looked at it in
Speaker 2: humans where we assumans are same. A girl was born
Speaker 2: with a certain number of over so that that determines
Speaker 2: the length of their fertility period when they're an adult.
Speaker 2: So the way the M marina vaccines work, they their
Speaker 2: marinae goes into a cell and it last quite a
Speaker 2: long time because it's not normal m RNA. It's modified.
Speaker 2: One of their bases is modified to make it last
Speaker 2: much longer. So the story about it. M marinae lasts
Speaker 2: only a few days in the cell. It's true. But
Speaker 2: this isn't that sort of m RNA. It's a modified
Speaker 2: The US bas is modified and makes it. They did
Speaker 2: that to make it stay in the cell much longer
Speaker 2: and produce much more protein.
Speaker 3: And that's right, that's right. That's right from the beginning
Speaker 3: of U from the beginning right back. And they knew it.
Speaker 2: So yeah, yes, So it it goes to the cell.
Speaker 2: It's called a machine of the cell to produce a
Speaker 2: toxic protein spike protein that the body recognizes as a
Speaker 2: foreign protein. So it eimulates an immune reous bonse against
Speaker 2: a protein which is expressed on that cell. So it
Speaker 2: will kill that cell as well, and it will cause
Speaker 2: some local inflammation, which is what happens when you get
Speaker 2: cell death. So if it concentrates in the ovaries, you'll
Speaker 2: get some local inflammation in the ovaries and some cell
Speaker 2: death in the ovaries. If it's in the liver, the
Speaker 2: same et cetera. That's how it works. So it's not
Speaker 2: an unreasonable assumption that you will lose some over during
Speaker 2: that period and you'll have a shorter fertility period as
Speaker 2: an adult. We don't know that, but it's not an
Speaker 2: unreasonable assumption. We will find out in twenty or thirty
Speaker 2: years time when the little girls who have been just
Speaker 2: been vaccinated now go into menopause and will see how
Speaker 2: long they had the fertility period. Yet they're still being
Speaker 2: injected in this situation, and although they are not initiate
Speaker 2: purpose of COVID, they've all got Everyone by now has
Speaker 2: had COVID and has a pretty good immunity. And the
Speaker 2: CDC did studies that compared directly, you know, did you
Speaker 2: go into hospital, did you die just after post infection immunity?
Speaker 2: And you know when you get another infection, or if
Speaker 2: you have vaccinate and you get an infection and there's
Speaker 2: you're slightly better off with natural immunity than the vaccine,
Speaker 2: and the vaccine on top of the natural immunity makes
Speaker 2: almost no discernible difference. So we have all the data
Speaker 2: that says if you've had an infection, you're highly unlikely
Speaker 2: to get severely or and the vaccine won't help significantly
Speaker 2: at all. This is a situation with everyone now. So
Speaker 2: this is CDC data. It's published. The data on the
Speaker 2: biodistribution going to the ovaries, et cetera is published by
Speaker 2: fires Biointech and with the regulatory agencies when they have
Speaker 2: proved the vaccines. Now they also had data from rats
Speaker 2: on an increase in feudal animalities, very significant increase compared
Speaker 2: to the control group in that same experiment. Yet they
Speaker 2: recommended for pregnant women, so we've been through this period
Speaker 2: that is actually hard to grasp as a public health
Speaker 2: physician in terms of the recklessness with which this was
Speaker 2: imposed on particularly is very vulnerable groups. Pregnant women and
Speaker 2: young children are usually the very last ones to be
Speaker 2: injected with a new drug, and only after years of
Speaker 2: experience and then very careful studies. So none of that
Speaker 2: happened normally with genetic therapeutic, which is what these are
Speaker 2: and what they were classified as by Madina. You have
Speaker 2: to do castinogenicity studies to see if it courses cancer.
Speaker 2: You have to do teriratogenicity studies, which is what they did.
Speaker 2: Being need to watch that in humans as well to
Speaker 2: see if they fall cause fetal animalities. You have to
Speaker 2: do that with a genetic therapeutic, which is what these are.
Speaker 2: You don't have to do it with a vaccine. So
Speaker 2: when they change the name to vaccine, they did away
Speaker 2: with all the stuff that you have to do for
Speaker 2: this sort of class of pharmaceutical, and this is acknowledged
Speaker 2: in the TGA report from Australia, the Australian regulatory agency,
Speaker 2: the Therapeutic Goods Administration. They acknowledged this in the report
Speaker 2: that the name change means that they didn't need to
Speaker 2: do this.
Speaker 3: So you.
Speaker 2: Can imagine if you had an existential threat from sort
Speaker 2: of airborne and bowler, which is never going to happen,
Speaker 2: never happened in human history, et cetera. But it's in
Speaker 2: the movies that you might take these sorts of risks.
Speaker 2: But it makes no sense for a virus that is
Speaker 2: associated with death on average in Europe at the age
Speaker 2: of about eighty to eighty three, and those people are
Speaker 2: the sick ones at that age, it's not the world ones.
Speaker 2: And that's what we faced with COVID. That's what we
Speaker 2: knew were facing with COVID from the first quarter of
Speaker 2: twenty twenty and has published in an answered So that
Speaker 2: is what we're dealing with. That is what happened. I
Speaker 2: think that has got a lot to do with why
Speaker 2: we keep seeing this push and keep seeing this pushed,
Speaker 2: rather than people sitting back and saying, this is what
Speaker 2: we actually did, because it's a big thing to admit.
Speaker 3: Well, let me cut to this paragraph. Knowing fully the
Speaker 3: impact of their actions, and you've said a couple of
Speaker 3: times now they knew what they would, they knew what
Speaker 3: they were doing, and they knew what they were causing.
Speaker 3: Knowing fully the impact of their actions, who helped force
Speaker 3: over one hundred million additional people into severe food insecurity
Speaker 3: and poverty, up to ten million additional girls into child marriage.
Speaker 3: And when you mentioned this before, I don't think you
Speaker 3: mentioned sexual slavery.
Speaker 2: Well, that's what chold marriage is. Yeah, well, yeah, it's
Speaker 2: sexual so free rape etctera. So that's you know, you
Speaker 2: take a thirteen year old girl and you stick with
Speaker 2: an old man, that's what you're doing. Isn't it.
Speaker 3: Where does the figure though? People? You know, anybody who
Speaker 3: was being interrogative would say to you, where do you
Speaker 3: get the figure of ten million plucked out of.
Speaker 2: The Yeah, that's from UNICF. That's from UNISF, the United
Speaker 2: Nations Children Educational Furnish whatever, the official u an agency
Speaker 2: for children. What are you U suggesting that they're trust
Speaker 2: So that's published. No, but they are like other agencies.
Speaker 2: They have a mix of people. They put out some
Speaker 2: as did WHO, some early on, some very good data
Speaker 2: and modeling and so on, the lightly harms of this intervention.
Speaker 2: So you have to remember that in twenty nineteen, late
Speaker 2: twenty nineteen, about October November, WHO put out the pandem
Speaker 2: Influenza Recommendations, which essentially say, don't do this under no circumstances,
Speaker 2: closed borders, do this sort of mass tests and trace
Speaker 2: et cetera. So or you know, the big features of COVID,
Speaker 2: and they point out that if you put people out
Speaker 2: of work for seven to ten days, you're likely to
Speaker 2: start seeing overall negative outcomes, particularly in low income people,
Speaker 2: because of the harm to of the economy and their income, etcetera.
Speaker 2: So UNISEF also, you know, they put out at the
Speaker 2: end of or in early twenty twenty one, estimates that
Speaker 2: were almost a quarter of a million dead children just
Speaker 2: from lockdowns in South Asia, so India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Six countries, almost a quarter million children. They are almost
Speaker 2: no children are dying from COVID that the World Bank
Speaker 2: put out estimates in low income countries, for every person
Speaker 2: that was saved by lockdowns, probably about two people died.
Speaker 2: One point sevent to two people died. It's the World Bank,
Speaker 2: which is the same organization pushing the whole thing. So
Speaker 2: these organizations are not that. They're large organizations and they
Speaker 2: have some people in them who are trying to work
Speaker 2: against the tide and actually get sensible data out You me,
Speaker 2: and sorry, no, I was just going to say, I mean,
Speaker 2: it's not made up. These are say ten million girls.
Speaker 2: That's because if you close schools and you impoverished families,
Speaker 2: particularly in South Asia, Subsaharan Africa and South America, then
Speaker 2: we know that a lot of girls will come out
Speaker 2: of school and they will be married off for various
Speaker 2: reasons including the family doesn't feel that they can afford
Speaker 2: to keep them anymore. And so this is what happens.
Speaker 2: This is well recognized. You know, there are organizations like
Speaker 2: as a Child Not Bride pre COVID that were quite
Speaker 2: prominent in trying to reduce child marriage and noting that
Speaker 2: poverty is a big driver and keeping kids in school
Speaker 2: is a big way of stopping it. We heard nothing
Speaker 2: from them, so these figures aren't And this is where
Speaker 2: I say, you know, this wasn't unexpected. It was known
Speaker 2: that this sort of response would have these sorts of outcomes,
Speaker 2: so it was intentional. Then the response was intentional, and
Speaker 2: they knew that it would have this collateral damage, and
Speaker 2: they knew that the disease they were doing it for,
Speaker 2: so in Sub Saharan Africa would kill very very few
Speaker 2: people because half the population there is under twenty, essentially children,
Speaker 2: and only about less than one percent of populations over
Speaker 2: seventy five, which is the high risk of COVID. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so it was intentional to do these lockdowns.
Speaker 3: What did you say was the morality level of the
Speaker 3: people who you're discussing And you can stretch it wider
Speaker 3: than that in the field, but that they know what's
Speaker 3: going to happen, they know what they're doing, but they
Speaker 3: do it anyway. Where is the morality level there or
Speaker 3: is there?
Speaker 2: No, doesn't seem very high. So we can all do this.
Speaker 2: I mean, we can all talk ourselves into we can
Speaker 2: convince ourselves if we really try, that something that is
Speaker 2: bad is necessary or good. And you know, unfortunately we
Speaker 2: have to do this because and you can pretend that
Speaker 2: the virus is an existential threat, and it's pretty easy
Speaker 2: to do that because you sort of get on board
Speaker 2: with your colleagues and you see each other up and
Speaker 2: here we are saving the words from a deadly virus
Speaker 2: as we kept hearing, you know, twenty four to seven
Speaker 2: and all that stuff. So you just you can get
Speaker 2: yourself into this mindset, particularly in groups, where you can
Speaker 2: then convince yourself as a group that you know, oh gee,
Speaker 2: there's going to be some damage, but you're saving the world.
Speaker 2: And if you stop, then you sit on a mountain
Speaker 2: and you stop and you think carefully through it, you
Speaker 2: realize that this is rubbish. But as long as you
Speaker 2: stay in the group and you keep seeing each other along,
Speaker 2: then I think you can sort of do this. And
Speaker 2: so you know, it's how crowds work. And well, I'm
Speaker 2: not trying to go down. I'm not trying to go
Speaker 2: down a conspiracy path. But considering that there are people
Speaker 2: involved at the very top of the money making tree
Speaker 2: that this is who believe that the world is overpopulated,
Speaker 2: but they have contributed greatly to this scenario. The negative
Speaker 2: side of it, is there any natural conclusion or possible
Speaker 2: natural conclusion we can come to over that or you
Speaker 2: could draw that. But if if you're trying to kill people,
Speaker 2: I think there's better ways of doing it if if
Speaker 2: you're you know, another effect of this is that there's
Speaker 2: a big production in reproductive health, so that there there's
Speaker 2: an increase in birth rate in Sub Saharan Africa as well.
Speaker 2: So this isn't going to reduce the world's population overall.
Speaker 2: Is probably going to increase it because poverty tends to
Speaker 2: lead to more children born as a sort of insurance policy,
Speaker 2: and so only because you can't access contraception, et cetera.
Speaker 2: So I don't think this will reduce the world's population.
Speaker 2: I think it will make it much much poorer. But hold,
Speaker 2: I mean there is a conspiracy. Of course, there's conspiracy
Speaker 2: is some people getting together and making a plan and
Speaker 2: not telling other people about it. That's what a conspiracy is.
Speaker 2: And that's that's how you do business. If you're running
Speaker 2: a company, if you're running Pisa or something, and you
Speaker 2: in maternity, you come up with a few other companies
Speaker 2: of a way of making selling a lot of stuff,
Speaker 2: which is your job as CEO, and making a lot
Speaker 2: of money out of it for your investors and shareholders.
Speaker 2: You're not going to go and tell everyone, Okay, we're
Speaker 2: going to do this because we want to make lots
Speaker 2: of money. We want to make hundreds of billions of
Speaker 2: dollars from selling a vacci You say we're saving the world.
Speaker 2: So of course there's a conspiracy in that there is
Speaker 2: people trying to make lots of money out of global
Speaker 2: health and they're not telling everyone exactly what. They're not
Speaker 2: putting it in those words. They're not telling everyone they're
Speaker 2: there to make money. And for the shareholders, they're telling
Speaker 2: everyone they're trying to save us. So but they are
Speaker 2: trying to make money. That's a job. So it's a
Speaker 2: conspiracy because they're running a business. That's say, you run
Speaker 2: a business, you have plans that you don't fully divulge
Speaker 2: to others, to the world. So I think you can
Speaker 2: explain this as a huge sort of business case that
Speaker 2: was completely devoid of morals and any breaks on conflict
Speaker 2: of interest, et cetera, and was facilitated by these large
Speaker 2: agencies that have become dependent on these same private entities.
Speaker 2: So of course there are people who people among these
Speaker 2: who want to have less people in the world, And
Speaker 2: in a way I can sort of understand that. Wouldn't
Speaker 2: it be nice to go to the beaches not crowded,
Speaker 2: wouldn't be nice not to have traffic jams every time
Speaker 2: you go to work. Great, you know, more green fields,
Speaker 2: et cetera. So that's a nice thing. But it's also
Speaker 2: nice to have humans. And here we are, we got
Speaker 2: eight billion humans, and humans are great. So you know,
Speaker 2: people can say to you they'd like to have less
Speaker 2: people in the world, and that's not a bad thing
Speaker 2: in itself to say, as long as they're not saying
Speaker 2: and therefore we want to kill lots of other people
Speaker 2: to get there. And I think if you wanted to
Speaker 2: do that, you would have a better virus than SARS
Speaker 2: kobe to and you would probably go further along the
Speaker 2: path of toxic responses to it. So I don't think
Speaker 2: that that was the primary driver at all. I think
Speaker 2: it was more making a lot of money, and there
Speaker 2: are some other things in the background. There is a
Speaker 2: push for things like central bank digital currency, which is
Speaker 2: not I mean, it's not a conspiracy there the central
Speaker 2: banks and someone say they want this. A Bank of
Speaker 2: Indudicial Settlements says it wants this CARST and has talked
Speaker 2: about it their head. To do that, you need people
Speaker 2: ideally to be poorer and to be more dependent on
Speaker 2: government and to have you know, digital ideas and digital
Speaker 2: transactions that you can then use.
Speaker 3: To sort of control their lives.
Speaker 2: Their lives and oh, you know, that's that's what they
Speaker 2: say they want central bank digital currency for it will
Speaker 2: allow you to control how much people travel, how what
Speaker 2: they eat, where they go, who they meet. So I
Speaker 2: think there are a lot of people who don't just
Speaker 2: want money. They want this sort of fascist state globally.
Speaker 2: And that's always been the case in human existence, is
Speaker 2: why would it go away? And COVID was and this
Speaker 2: whole pandemic agenda is a huge opportunity to do that
Speaker 2: because it provides the fear that you need to make
Speaker 2: people do things that they wouldn't normally do. So in
Speaker 2: the nineteen eighties in Australia, they tried to bring in
Speaker 2: a digital National Idea just National Idea card, and there
Speaker 2: was a huge outcry and it's just killed the whole idea.
Speaker 2: They're doing it now and no unblinks because they've managed
Speaker 2: to get people's mindset to think that the government is
Speaker 2: saving them from existential crises, whether it's it's pandemics, or
Speaker 2: it's a climate crisis, or its terrorism whatever. And they
Speaker 2: need to allow the government to know who where they
Speaker 2: are and where they're spending their money and what they're
Speaker 2: doing all the time so that they can be kept
Speaker 2: safe from all these things. And I think that is
Speaker 2: somewhat deliberate, or is quite deliberate, because people want to
Speaker 2: do that in order to have control over others and
Speaker 2: even further concentrate wealth, etc. And it's a sort of feudalism.
Speaker 2: That's the normal way that human society works, unless you
Speaker 2: constantly fight against it. Well, it can only for him.
Speaker 2: This is what they talk about essentially with their Great Reset,
Speaker 2: is essentially stakeholder capitalism, is essentially feudalism.
Speaker 3: Well, we said we would revert to the American election
Speaker 3: briefly at least, and that would appear to be the
Speaker 3: right time to do it considering that you were just
Speaker 3: talking of the CBDC, and let's throw into the mix
Speaker 3: the fact that Trump has made it very clear that
Speaker 3: he will ban it and will not allow it while
Speaker 3: he is any position to stop it. What comment would
Speaker 3: you make on that? I think it's great, Yeah, not
Speaker 3: only any great, fantastic.
Speaker 2: I mean it's it doesn't solve the problem completely. Obviously.
Speaker 2: They essentially did what you want to do with CBDC.
Speaker 2: They did that, for instance in Canada during the Truckees effort,
Speaker 2: and they you know that, they people just had their
Speaker 2: bank accounts closed. And so it turns out Millennia Trump
Speaker 2: had a bank account closed in twenty yep, so did
Speaker 2: Baron Trump. I mean, what on earth? So that they're
Speaker 2: already trying to make it hard to live financially for people,
Speaker 2: but we don't need CBDC. There's a great short video
Speaker 2: out probably not on YouTube but on other channels. So
Speaker 2: it's the Minneapolis Fed Federal Reserve chairman talking about this,
Speaker 2: saying like, why on earth would Americans want this? We
Speaker 2: manage perfectly fine with their finances. Now, why do you
Speaker 2: want the government to be able to control everything you do?
Speaker 2: It makes no sense from a public viewpoint is we don't.
Speaker 2: It's not saving us from anything. It's just imposing more
Speaker 2: more control over us. So why would anyone?
Speaker 3: So who was that? You said, Indianapolis? It's a Minnieapolis
Speaker 3: Reserve Bank. Reserve Bank. Yeah, so it's floating around on
Speaker 3: the internet. It's in a few times. It's a good video.
Speaker 2: He's just arguing, sensibly, saying, why would people you know,
Speaker 2: you can't well population, you want this imposed on you?
Speaker 3: Well, the answer, the answer is, of course you can
Speaker 3: make something like that, and they and they do make
Speaker 3: it appealing because you don't have to. I mean, the
Speaker 3: next the next thing would be that you'll have a
Speaker 3: chip in your hand. That'll happen one day. Yeah, it's
Speaker 3: you don't need so you'd never lose your keys, you never,
Speaker 3: you don't have to worry about anything and just carry
Speaker 3: on and life's easy.
Speaker 2: To go to the supermarket. You just wave your hand
Speaker 2: over the reader and there you go.
Speaker 3: Well, who wouldn't who wouldn't wanted them? And my response
Speaker 3: immediately is look at the look at the change in
Speaker 3: that election we've just well just mentioned of. I only
Speaker 3: heard this morning that there was a swing of eleven
Speaker 3: points for women under thirty to Trump.
Speaker 2: Yeah, young people very strongly voted and now swung in
Speaker 2: that direction, which is really interesting actually, and not I
Speaker 2: think what the other side expected. So well, the only
Speaker 2: shift in African Americans, a shift in Latino voters, etc.
Speaker 2: Because you know, it's it's been an interesting time in
Speaker 2: the US. I'm very surprised actually there. I come for
Speaker 2: a number of reasons. But like many people, I thought
Speaker 2: Trump was terrible the first time he was elected because
Speaker 2: I listened to the media, and the media had nothing
Speaker 2: good whatsoever to say about this person. If you spend
Speaker 2: the time and you listen to one two three hour
Speaker 2: long long form interviews with him, then you get a
Speaker 2: very different picture of who this person is. And you know,
Speaker 2: I don't know why the media is so against him,
Speaker 2: but if there's someone like that, is that important you
Speaker 2: should sit down and actually make up your own minds
Speaker 2: and not have your mind made up by someone else.
Speaker 3: Well, it's called it's called group thinkers, you know, and
Speaker 3: it has quite a history now.
Speaker 2: But it's worse than that. This was propaganda, isn't it.
Speaker 2: It's I mean, we were told constantly this person was
Speaker 2: far right, racists, misogynists, whatever. But if you any anti abortion,
Speaker 2: anti this, and anti that, and if you listen to him,
Speaker 2: he actually got pretty irrational approaches to these issues, but
Speaker 2: they almost never get reported in the media. And he
Speaker 2: is someone who talks off the cuff a lot, which
Speaker 2: is dangerous for a politician, but is also somewhat refreshing.
Speaker 2: We're so used to people just having Telly prompters and
Speaker 2: so on, or saying what their focus group told him
Speaker 2: to say, so sometimes he says things in a way
Speaker 2: that you sort of think, oh, no, why do you
Speaker 2: say that way, because people take it the wrong way.
Speaker 2: But if you put it in the context of a
Speaker 2: half hour hour long interview, then it starts to make sense.
Speaker 2: And I think a lot of people saw this because people,
Speaker 2: and probably much more than news in but the US
Speaker 2: populace has turned massively away from mainstream media, and so
Speaker 2: that people listen to podcasts. I will listen to the
Speaker 2: podcast with Joe Rogan or with Tucker Carlson or something,
Speaker 2: and they'll hear a Trump or a put In or
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris. If you'll do it, or et cetera, talk
Speaker 2: for a long time, and you can start to get
Speaker 2: an idea of what they're really thinking, whereas you can't
Speaker 2: do that by a journalist who is and there's about
Speaker 2: ninety seven percent of US journalists are on one side
Speaker 2: of politics and three percent on the other. When they
Speaker 2: pull them and journalists openly say now that their job
Speaker 2: is advocacy, not reporting the news, so that they see
Speaker 2: their job as trying to turn the country into what
Speaker 2: they consider as a better place, so they propagandas so,
Speaker 2: most of what we get now on mainstream media in
Speaker 2: the US is propaganda and not news. And I think
Speaker 2: people have which is a refreshing part of this. People
Speaker 2: have realized that on a very large scale.
Speaker 3: They have in the States obviously, but not so much
Speaker 3: elsewhere We've still got the same. Yeah, simple journalists I'm
Speaker 3: trying to be as kind as I can who don't
Speaker 3: understand how it could have happened and continue to write
Speaker 3: the crap that they have written all along. I am
Speaker 3: thinking of one or two in particular.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it happened because this was a person
Speaker 2: who can actually articulate policy at length. You know, take
Speaker 2: Charlotteviell or something he did not say. Just good people,
Speaker 2: both sides at Charlotteviell. You know, this is something I
Speaker 2: only found two or three years later. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 2: he said he specifically excluded white supremacists from that, and
Speaker 2: so it's the opposite of how it was reported. People
Speaker 2: have seen so much of that here that I think
Speaker 2: the media has just lost credibility. But you know, you
Speaker 2: had one side that spent only a third of the money,
Speaker 2: but who had very long speeches and very long interviews
Speaker 2: and articulated a wide policy alternatives, they said what they're
Speaker 2: planning to do. You had another side. If there are
Speaker 2: clear policies I missing, and I think people are struggling
Speaker 2: to the people struggle to figure out what the actual
Speaker 2: policy is apart from trying to keep Trump out. But
Speaker 2: that's not a policy that you're going to went on.
Speaker 2: So yeah, they didn't articulate any policy, and they teleproms
Speaker 2: are broke down so so and that they clearly did
Speaker 2: not tell the truth to the American public about the
Speaker 2: state of the previous president and et cetera. So you know,
Speaker 2: I can't see how journalists struggle with that. The left
Speaker 2: of politicies and what the left used to be. But
Speaker 2: if if you're a sort of pro Democrat or pro
Speaker 2: republic whatever, it's hard to argue I think with what
Speaker 2: I just said, because that's blatantly in front of everyone.
Speaker 3: Now, before you tell me that you've had enough, I've
Speaker 3: got a couple of other things, so we should we
Speaker 3: should move on at least briefly two, two or three
Speaker 3: other matters, if I may, I want to mention Jay Baticharia,
Speaker 3: one of the three medical people who came up with the.
Speaker 2: Great Barrington.
Speaker 3: Yes, and at first of all, I didn't understand what
Speaker 3: on earth the Great Barrington thing was. And then once
Speaker 3: I got a grasp, of course I.
Speaker 2: Knew he was just orthodox public health. Well there's a
Speaker 2: mother Kodolf and symmetric upture, and they didn't come up
Speaker 2: with anything new, which is why it's so important that
Speaker 2: they just articulated clearly orthodox public health exactly.
Speaker 3: Now, I had cold Off on the podcast fairly early
Speaker 3: in the piece, and wish i'd had Battacharia, but I
Speaker 3: never tried. But I see that he was just awarded
Speaker 3: a major international scientific prize. You see that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I can't remember what it was, but I did.
Speaker 2: I know Jay, he's a very nice person. Yes, these
Speaker 2: people should be getting prizes because they stood up at
Speaker 2: considerable cost. Yeah, and they were just insisting on telling
Speaker 2: the truth. They were talking orthodox public health. Essently, they
Speaker 2: were talking about what we knew is true for a
Speaker 2: lot of it's just common sense. You don't even have
Speaker 2: to be a public health physician to know that if
Speaker 2: you massively impoverish people and close down economy, then that's
Speaker 2: going to make health generally worse in the future. I
Speaker 2: mean that's pretty obvious. So and that is why that's
Speaker 2: what the Great Barons in Declace is about, is just
Speaker 2: you will cause more harm if you close down the
Speaker 2: health system, closed down the economy for something like this,
Speaker 2: rather than just concentrating on the people who are actually
Speaker 2: at risk and addressing their needs.
Speaker 3: The Australian COVID Inquiry report now the risk of treading
Speaker 3: on Ramesh the Cursed Toes. He's declared it not fit
Speaker 3: for purpose. Have you read it. I haven't read it yet.
Speaker 3: No report on it.
Speaker 2: I think it's it's much like the others. It says
Speaker 2: should have done more stuff, more quickly, and it doesn't
Speaker 2: go into the the harms I've seen.
Speaker 3: Short summary, We've we've got we've got something. I think
Speaker 3: we've still got something underway here. It's it's hard to
Speaker 3: tell sometimes, but it's it's going to fall into the
Speaker 3: same category, and there'll be a follow up. I think,
Speaker 3: I trust that might might might be might Get honest,
Speaker 3: do you think that one day the people who are
Speaker 3: and I'm thinking particularly of ex prime ministers and the
Speaker 3: and they're lot, will be recognized appropriately for what they did.
Speaker 2: I think they will eventually, because when people look back
Speaker 2: and do their studies on this in thirty or forty
Speaker 2: years time, Yeah, that there there's this big dip in
Speaker 2: the economy, there's an increase in debt that was see
Speaker 2: that as we know now. I mean all of course
Speaker 2: what tality wasn't any better, is generally worse in countries
Speaker 2: that had strict measures compared to those that didn't. And
Speaker 2: there is this huge impact on basic human rights and
Speaker 2: so on that the world been fighting for for so
Speaker 2: long and then just went backwards so many steps. So
Speaker 2: I think in the future it'll be recognized as a
Speaker 2: huge mistake. I doubt that it will directly impact any
Speaker 2: of these people. I don't think anyone political is going
Speaker 2: to go to jail or something for this, and I'm
Speaker 2: not sure that. I mean, some of them are actually extreme,
Speaker 2: and the one you're talking about is recognized as fairly
Speaker 2: extreme globally. But politicians were in a really difficult situation
Speaker 2: with this, and I think we have to recognize this
Speaker 2: put yourself in their shoes. The whole media was against it,
Speaker 2: and the media was on the side of big farm totally,
Speaker 2: along with hundreds of billions of dollars of effort. And
Speaker 2: if those Jordan said, as Prince of Sweden did they
Speaker 2: weren't going to do this. Every death is pinned on them,
Speaker 2: so it was likely political suicide. Having said that, I
Speaker 2: didn't see any leaders sit down in front of the
Speaker 2: nation for a couple of hours and just talk through
Speaker 2: like these are the facts. This is the age people dying,
Speaker 2: and this is the comorbidities. If we close down, we're
Speaker 2: not going to help all these other people, and we're
Speaker 2: going to do this huge economic harm and that's going
Speaker 2: to mean longer waiting lists and less money for cancer treatment,
Speaker 2: less money for heart disease, less money for kids' illnesses, etc.
Speaker 2: In the future. So what are you doing. If we
Speaker 2: had that conversation and there was a politician anywhere brave
Speaker 2: enough to do that, I suspect that a lot of
Speaker 2: populations would have sided with them. But that aside. You know,
Speaker 2: I think they were just trying to avoid being classed
Speaker 2: in the media and by a lot of the population
Speaker 2: who were just brainwashed as murderers. I mean, maybe I'm
Speaker 2: being over nice. I don't know, but I think that
Speaker 2: sort of explains why so many went along with it
Speaker 2: and very few politicians stood up.
Speaker 3: I think it reflects on the politicians or the standard
Speaker 3: of politicians that we now accept in the main.
Speaker 2: It certainly does that. Yeah, and just I know Australian
Speaker 2: politicians were speakings in similar that, including that, you know
Speaker 2: your recent Prime minister. Their career politicians they haven't run
Speaker 2: a business, they haven't run a farm, they haven't worked
Speaker 2: in a law practice for thirty years before they go
Speaker 2: into politics or medicine whatever. So they go through, they
Speaker 2: come out of high school, they go into university, they
Speaker 2: joined student politics, they joined whatever party in that politics
Speaker 2: in the university, and that's their career for life is
Speaker 2: just being a politician. And really that's the last person
Speaker 2: who you would want to run your country. You know,
Speaker 2: you've just you've no idea. You've just reminded me of something.
Speaker 2: There was there was an article, there was a commentary
Speaker 2: piece written by a university professor here with regard to
Speaker 2: Jacinda going and giving advice to Karmala. Right, No, this
Speaker 2: is this is true, not fiction, not fiction. Apparently it's true.
Speaker 2: There's a picture of the two of them together, and
Speaker 2: et cetera. It's just occurred to me. We know that you,
Speaker 2: Sinda worked in a fish and chip shop. Apparently Carmela
Speaker 2: didn't work in McDonald's or no one can, no one
Speaker 2: can prove it. They're stroking to find a record.
Speaker 3: Do you do you think maybe that gave her a
Speaker 3: hint by saying, look, it stood be in great stead
Speaker 3: having worked in a fish shop. Maybe you worked in
Speaker 3: McDonald's or something along the way.
Speaker 2: I suspect they're are told to try to identify, at
Speaker 2: least with ordinary people. A lot of interesting you know,
Speaker 2: it's interesting looking at the all the celebrities socided with.
Speaker 3: Yeah, mostly for megabugs.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they were paid lots and lots of money, Yes, exactly,
Speaker 2: so so that they're not they're not people who apparently
Speaker 2: were there because of this is what they really believed in,
Speaker 2: or if they did, there was a very fortuitous that
Speaker 2: they're getting paid to stand by their belief. Again, I
Speaker 2: think that people saw this people recognize that they didn't
Speaker 2: know I think at that time how much people are
Speaker 2: being paid. But they can see that people have not
Speaker 2: really you know, it comes back to actually articulating policies
Speaker 2: and explaining why you're there versus just being there and
Speaker 2: jumping up and down and saying never Trump one side
Speaker 2: ran this very shallow campaign because we think how journalists
Speaker 2: can't recognize that is really interesting because it means that
Speaker 2: they are really they've lost the ability to think rationally
Speaker 2: to a large extent.
Speaker 3: Indeed, look to to put paid to this podcast. Let
Speaker 3: me quote you from the article to arrest the degradation
Speaker 3: of health, human rights and sovereignty, we need an exit
Speaker 3: strategy from unethical public health. This will require an exit
Speaker 3: strategy from approaches mired in conflict of interest and an
Speaker 3: emphasis on evidence rather than corporate profit. And for the
Speaker 3: sake of both donor country taxpayers and the recipients of
Speaker 3: their support, we need an exit strategy from external dependency
Speaker 3: in order to achieve health independence. This is what sustainability
Speaker 3: and equity means, words of which global health profiteers are
Speaker 3: so fond. These changes need to be sect a wide,
Speaker 3: not just the who so what you're saying is that
Speaker 3: the who certainly needs to be changed dramatically, but so
Speaker 3: does the whole sector.
Speaker 2: Is that possible. It's possible. Comes back to what we're
Speaker 2: saying near the start of the discussion that the global
Speaker 2: health industry is just growing and growing more rapidly than us,
Speaker 2: probably than it has before, and it should be going
Speaker 2: in the other direction. We should be building capacity in
Speaker 2: countries that struggle technically so they don't need external help anymore.
Speaker 2: And that is the supposedly the whole point of foreign aid.
Speaker 2: And this is the standard left or right wing, but
Speaker 2: certainly left wing thinking around public health two decades ago.
Speaker 2: You don't want a colonialist situation where you have people
Speaker 2: from rich countries having all the expertise and going and
Speaker 2: telling people in poor countries what to do. You want
Speaker 2: to build our world based much more equally, where all
Speaker 2: countries have adequate capacity and can manage their own health
Speaker 2: in the way that they see fit. And that is
Speaker 2: what we are supposed to be building in international public health,
Speaker 2: or we were. Is the opposite of having very strong
Speaker 2: central institutions that have the ability to dictate policy about
Speaker 2: whether it's vaccination or lockdowns or whatever. And it's the
Speaker 2: opposite of growing these central institutions, they should be getting
Speaker 2: smaller and smaller as countries get on their own feet
Speaker 2: and do things themselves. And I don't think people can
Speaker 2: really argue with that from any point of view, except
Speaker 2: if you really are on the train that believes that
Speaker 2: the world is facically increasing existential threats and we're all
Speaker 2: going to die if we don't all give up our
Speaker 2: rights to some central bureaucuct to save us. And if
Speaker 2: you're on that train still, then it is properly hard
Speaker 2: to get you off it. There's no rational basis for
Speaker 2: believing that we are generally living longer and pandemics, outbreaks,
Speaker 2: infectious cities outbreaks are getting less deadly overall and are
Speaker 2: not getting more frequent. We're getting better at detecting them,
Speaker 2: but they're not killing more people. So it's illogical to
Speaker 2: believe that. It doesn't fit historically, it doesn't fit epidemiologically.
Speaker 2: If people custominds back to twenty nineteen, it doesn't fit
Speaker 2: properly with their experience at all. So people need to
Speaker 2: sort of undo the propaganda a bit and go back
Speaker 2: to that mountain to think on their own and think
Speaker 2: through what is actually going on and that they will
Speaker 2: realize that there is no good reason to keep growing
Speaker 2: these bureaucracies. That poverty was going down before COVID, etc.
Speaker 2: Countries were doing better, the most African countries had rapidly
Speaker 2: increasing GDPs or that was reversed during COVID. The world
Speaker 2: was getting much better. We've had this huge step backwards.
Speaker 2: But you could argue that is because these institutions need
Speaker 2: for surviving growth is such that they are now really
Speaker 2: poisoning the world and poisoning the countries that they were
Speaker 2: supposedly supporting.
Speaker 3: I read this morning, it was sent to me from
Speaker 3: London an article from the Times on the top four
Speaker 3: I think it was airlines with the luxury section sector,
Speaker 3: and Emirates and Singapore Airlines and whatever else. And they've
Speaker 3: all refitted or in the process of refitting, and the
Speaker 3: luxury level has gone up rapidly in first class, business
Speaker 3: class and in economy plus. And I just thought earlier
Speaker 3: on when you were talking about the travel business class
Speaker 3: travel for these people who who fly around between Nairobi
Speaker 3: and Geneva and what have you, that this was even
Speaker 3: more incentive for them to maintain their positions and grow
Speaker 3: the company.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, and it's people think the foreign age is
Speaker 2: going to help you desperate people in distant villages. A
Speaker 2: lot of it is going to support these people, and
Speaker 2: it's extremely difficult when you're in that situation which I've
Speaker 2: been in, to get out of it because it is
Speaker 2: such a nice and interesting life, you know, people dream
Speaker 2: about this. So yeah, there's all sorts of reasons that
Speaker 2: people in these organizations think of to maintain that situation.
Speaker 3: David, been a pleasure. Thank you, always grateful and I
Speaker 3: hope that we I hope we see you again soon.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I hope. So thanks late, and I have a
Speaker 2: good Christmas early soon.
Speaker 3: Oh listen, I forgot, I'm sorry. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year,
Speaker 3: and stay well. Thank you, thank you. Now I'm doing
Speaker 3: it a little differently this year. At the end of
Speaker 3: the replay, I usually have a few words to say,
Speaker 3: and every year I have to struggle to think up
Speaker 3: what the appropriate thing is to put in this particular plot.
Speaker 3: So I've decided to give myself a break and do
Speaker 3: one that covers all of them. So if you've heard
Speaker 3: this before, you can turn it off because you've heard it,
Speaker 3: because it's going to be the same one for each
Speaker 3: of the seven replays. Now, if this is the first one,
Speaker 3: then I trust that you're having a wonderful holiday. If
Speaker 3: you're not on holiday yet, your time will come. Rest assured.
Speaker 3: I have enjoyed doing these because re listening to them myself,
Speaker 3: I get more out of them and I see things,
Speaker 3: or I should say, I hear things that I might
Speaker 3: have got slightly wrong or I could have done better,
Speaker 3: So it's a learning curve as well. Anyway, we will
Speaker 3: be back for the next one a week from this
Speaker 3: particular release, unless, of course it's the last one, which
Speaker 3: is on the twenty ninth of January, and that'll be
Speaker 3: the end of this replay series. Add on February five,
Speaker 3: we shall return with fresh content in the meantime. At
Speaker 3: any stage us drop us on notes if you've got
Speaker 3: comment that you'd like to make later at news talks
Speaker 3: AB dot co dot enzend and Caroline at newstalksb dot
Speaker 3: co dot nz and we shall talk soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you for more from News Talks AB. Listen live
Speaker 1: on air or online, and keep our shows with you
Speaker 1: wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio