Speaker 1: You're listening to a podcast from news Talks It be
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. Off down the Layton Smith
Speaker 1: podcast powered by news Talks It.
Speaker 2: Be Welcome to podcasts two hundred and sixty five and
Speaker 2: November thirteen, twenty twenty four. How well We're governed is
Speaker 2: entitled to be an open, continuous question. Political competence is
Speaker 2: never guaranteed. Complacency is too easy a position to settle
Speaker 2: in which states the case for the need for skeptics.
Speaker 2: Whether it's New Zealand, Australia, Britain, America, the principles are
Speaker 2: the same that I leave out Canada. Now that DJ
Speaker 2: Trump has been re elected, is no reason to relax
Speaker 2: and expect all aspects of administration to be perfect. There's
Speaker 2: always something capable of dispensing unexpected issues, such as the
Speaker 2: World Health Organization. Here are two headlines Shane Jones World
Speaker 2: Health Organization needs reform, not fattening zecond aheader New Zealand First,
Speaker 2: fears over who regulations are misplaced, Robust checks and balances
Speaker 2: already exist and here is a giveaway that is halfway
Speaker 2: down the page. You can trust this article because it's
Speaker 2: written by academics, really, but you get the picture. Looks
Speaker 2: all sounds like the ultimate pulpits of truth. Now in
Speaker 2: the interview to follow with doctor David Bell, who has
Speaker 2: been on the podcast on a few occasions now, and
Speaker 2: if you wonder why, the answer is because I appreciate
Speaker 2: his opinions. Discussion covers what I've already mentioned and a
Speaker 2: whole lot more. I think the best way I can
Speaker 2: describe it is it is and will be enlightening. Now
Speaker 2: brief to another matter. I quote you Neil ferguson the historian.
Speaker 2: Trump's victory is a blow to political lawfare, critical race theory,
Speaker 2: woke campuses, legacy media, and Hollywood. It's also a win
Speaker 2: for a new generation of builders like Elon Musk. Now,
Speaker 2: after the mail room, we shall indulge in a little
Speaker 2: more on Trump's triumph last week, but in a moment David.
Speaker 3: Bell Layton Smith.
Speaker 2: Leverix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality.
Speaker 2: Leverix relieves hay fever and skin allergies or itchy skin.
Speaker 2: It's a dual action antihistamine and has a unique nasal
Speaker 2: decongested action. It's fast acting for fast relief and it
Speaker 2: works in under an hour and lasts for over twenty
Speaker 2: four hours. Leverrix is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose,
Speaker 2: deals with itchy eyes, and stops sneezing. Levericks is an
Speaker 2: antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality. So next
Speaker 2: time you're in need of an effective antihistamine, call into
Speaker 2: the pharmacy and ask for Leverix l e v Rix
Speaker 2: Leverix and always read the label. Takes directed and if
Speaker 2: symptoms persist, see your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland. David Bell,
Speaker 2: Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician
Speaker 2: a biotech consultant in global health. David is a former
Speaker 2: medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization, the
Speaker 2: WHO Program head for Malaria and febrile Diseases at the
Speaker 2: Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics in Geneva, and Director of
Speaker 2: Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good in Bellevue
Speaker 2: in Washington State in the United States. He is also
Speaker 2: a guest on this podcast, has been a guest on
Speaker 2: this podcast more than once, twice, three, maybe four times.
Speaker 2: And it's very good to welcome you back. I'm appreciative
Speaker 2: of the fact that you are here. Yeah, thanks for
Speaker 2: having me back late. It is always interesting, it is
Speaker 2: always a pleasure. I got to say, what a quote.
Speaker 2: I want to quote a lot of things actually in
Speaker 2: this podcast, but let me start with an example of destructive,
Speaker 2: unaccountable bureaucratic overreach, which is part of what you opened
Speaker 2: up with for a column on Brownstone. An example and
Speaker 2: I repeat it, of destructive, unaccountable bureaucratic overreach. Are you
Speaker 2: taking a stronger stance over I won't say against, but
Speaker 2: over the World Health Organization?
Speaker 3: Now, I don't think so. I've I think for the
Speaker 3: last four years, I've been pointing out what is going on.
Speaker 3: I mean, in the end, you have an organization that
Speaker 3: has knowingly impoverished the world and that they absolutely knew
Speaker 3: what they're doing. And it's I think most of your
Speaker 3: viewers probably don't understand the extent of an additional one
Speaker 3: hundred million plus people in severe poverty through deprivation, up
Speaker 3: to ten million girls in additional in child marriage, increased
Speaker 3: child labor, a huge increase in national debt, in low
Speaker 3: income countries, which will translate into them being forced to
Speaker 3: comply with global predators who prey on such in derbted countries.
Speaker 3: And this is what has happened. I think now it's
Speaker 3: interesting because that there's a chance at least something may
Speaker 3: change slightly with the US election. So it's but I
Speaker 3: think those words are not out of sync with what've
Speaker 3: and others have been saying for quite a while. I
Speaker 3: was going to is a massive organization, is a huge bureaucracy,
Speaker 3: It's grossly out of touch with reality, and it is
Speaker 3: deliberately misleading countries.
Speaker 2: I was going to raise the American election result with
Speaker 2: you a little later, so let's just park it for
Speaker 2: the moment, because there is probably a little more than
Speaker 2: just this to discuss. I want to quote you this
Speaker 2: particular headline, followed by another one New Zealand first, fears
Speaker 2: over who regulations are misplaced, robust checks and balances already exist,
Speaker 2: and then the second headline is Shane Jones world health
Speaker 2: organization needs reform not fappening.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: These are two at variance commentaries. One is written by journalists,
Speaker 2: the other is written by well politician, which one of
Speaker 2: those is closer to the reality.
Speaker 3: Or clearly the second one. I think that's time I
Speaker 3: was on this program where I was we were talking
Speaker 3: about the work of the University of Leeds, where we're
Speaker 3: looking at the International Pandemic Agenda, the push by WHO,
Speaker 3: World Bank, G twenty, et cetera to increase funding from
Speaker 3: countries from taxpayers for this rapidly growing bureaucracy around pandemics
Speaker 3: and supposedly increasing pandemic risk, and where we've shown conclusively
Speaker 3: that this is well as WHO would term it misinformation.
Speaker 3: They are twisting the reality around infectious disease, pandemic risk
Speaker 3: and the costs of dealing with it and the effect
Speaker 3: that would have. But journalists, I think, by and large
Speaker 3: don't dig into things like that anymore. They just assume
Speaker 3: if the World Bank or the G twenty says something,
Speaker 3: it must be true. So I'm not defending journalists, but
Speaker 3: I think that's probably where those sorts of responses come from.
Speaker 3: So I mean, when that is happening, when the WHO
Speaker 3: is doing that as well, then clearly what change journes
Speaker 3: it makes sense that the WHO is it is a
Speaker 3: huge It's not just a WHO, but the whole intershal
Speaker 3: health bureaucracy is tens of thousands of people.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 3: It is a huge and rapidly growing industry that lives
Speaker 3: mostly off taxpayer money and mostly in very wealthy countries,
Speaker 3: and as we saw in COVID, is now no longer
Speaker 3: really helping, but is increasing the risk of port health
Speaker 3: and impoverishing people, concentrating wealth in the pharmaceutical companies that
Speaker 3: have very much become influential in it. What these organizations
Speaker 3: should be doing is helping countries when they're asked to
Speaker 3: build capacity so that we don't need these organizations anymore.
Speaker 3: So that's the op they shouldn't be growing. You know,
Speaker 3: there was a who is set up in the late
Speaker 3: nineteen forties. It was helping countries that came out of
Speaker 3: colonialism to sort of get on their feet deal with
Speaker 3: major diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and now those what should
Speaker 3: be happening is us countries should be getting on their feet,
Speaker 3: so we shouldn't need the WHO anymore in anything like
Speaker 3: you know, as a large organization, you can have a
Speaker 3: place where countries meet and so on, but there isn't
Speaker 3: a place for a growing international health bureaucracy. If we
Speaker 3: are getting better at medicine in countries and we're building capacity,
Speaker 3: and sanitation is getting better, and nutrition is getting better,
Speaker 3: et cetera. It should be. And if that's still not
Speaker 3: the case, if we're seventy or eighty years into WHO
Speaker 3: and they are seeing the problems are growing and not
Speaker 3: reducing despite all the improvement in technology and everything in
Speaker 3: the world, then clearly they're a gross failure anyway, So
Speaker 3: we should be looking at something else.
Speaker 2: Since twenty twenty, the WHO has orchestrated and condoned one
Speaker 2: of the most devastating assaults on individual and societal health
Speaker 2: the world has seen. At the behest of highly conflicted sponsors,
Speaker 2: this international bureaucracy promoted policies that overwhelmingly harmed the world's
Speaker 2: most disadvantage. The organization turned on those whom it had
Speaker 2: been set up to serve. Returning to the pre World
Speaker 2: War II mindset of technocratic authoritarianism that characterize public health
Speaker 2: in the area of eugenics, colonialism, and European fascism. Now
Speaker 2: those last three terms are things that those of the
Speaker 2: left regale against constantly, and yet here we are, and
Speaker 2: here you are writing that about an organization that we
Speaker 2: all know the bureaucracies either live by growth or die
Speaker 2: by the growth. So is it fair to say that
Speaker 2: they're simply thinking of survival.
Speaker 3: The thing of growth. Yeah. So the demos are organization
Speaker 3: of thousands of people, and there's still people there who
Speaker 3: are working hard and doing useful stuff. It's not like
Speaker 3: the whole organization is completely corrupted, but I think at
Speaker 3: the top of the policy level it has been for
Speaker 3: the last several years. And you know, I mentioned some
Speaker 3: of the numbers in COVID. Then the abandonment of science
Speaker 3: in COVID, which was gross, the abandonment of pretending that
Speaker 3: mass work and social distincting and pretending that you should
Speaker 3: close stop travel when you've got the same virus on
Speaker 3: both hents of the travel path and the essential completely
Speaker 3: district guard for human immunity natural immunity. We had the
Speaker 3: most expensive of public health program in Africa or mass
Speaker 3: vaccination when who knew from their own studies that almost
Speaker 3: the whole population already had effective immunity against COVID from
Speaker 3: natural infection. So it's an organization which there's thousands of people.
Speaker 3: If you're in an organization for twenty or thirty years,
Speaker 3: inevitably you sort of lose the edge of the good
Speaker 3: intent you might have gone in with, and you become
Speaker 3: you want your pension, which is very extremely good at
Speaker 3: who so you want to hang out for that, So
Speaker 3: you want to comply. You have your kids in high
Speaker 3: school or college or whatever, and they get a seventy
Speaker 3: five percent education subsidy, you get a rental subsidy, you
Speaker 3: get very good salary. On top of all this, you
Speaker 3: get business class travel, five star hotels or the rest
Speaker 3: of it. You inevitably, almost everyone, I think, start to
Speaker 3: think that you're one, you're really important, more important than
Speaker 3: other people because you've paid so well when you travel
Speaker 3: in important aircraft seats and get picked up by cars
Speaker 3: with a blue badge on the door. And secondly, oh,
Speaker 3: you see it in all institutions, I think the role
Speaker 3: of the institution, or the existence and the reputation the
Speaker 3: institution becomes your primary focus because you think that the
Speaker 3: world needs your institution and therefore you must protect it.
Speaker 3: So you know, this is the sort of thing that
Speaker 3: is the effect of the Catholic Church, for instance, with
Speaker 3: the cover up of child sexual abuse in the past,
Speaker 3: and you see the same thing in the un actually
Speaker 3: for exactly the same issue, or really the Human Rights
Speaker 3: Council has been guilty of this in Central African Republic
Speaker 3: about ten years ago. So you tend to put your
Speaker 3: your organization first and not the supposed goal of the organization.
Speaker 3: And yeah, I don't know of any bureaucracy anywhere that
Speaker 3: has worked to put itself out of existence, because that
Speaker 3: means losing your salary, losing the salary of your team.
Speaker 3: But if you're an international organization that is a servant
Speaker 3: of countries and a servant of populations and your job
Speaker 3: is to build their capacity, that is actually what you
Speaker 3: should do. So I can imagine you could struct an
Speaker 3: organization to do that. It's probably something where people can
Speaker 3: only say five or ten years, and they have to
Speaker 3: rotate out anyway, so it doesn't become their permanent home.
Speaker 3: But once you allow an organization to become a permanent
Speaker 3: home for a large bureaucracy, it's not going to work
Speaker 3: its way out of assistance. It's going to look to grow,
Speaker 3: because that's just what human institutions do. And in Who's case,
Speaker 3: to grow it meant throwing away essentially a lot of
Speaker 3: the conflict of interests rules that they had in the
Speaker 3: past and getting to bed with large corporations and private
Speaker 3: sector investors, and so about twenty five percent of their
Speaker 3: budget now is directly from or in directly from private sector,
Speaker 3: and most of their budget, whether from countries or private sector,
Speaker 3: is specified so that the funder tells you what you
Speaker 3: would do with that money. That's not how WHO started.
Speaker 3: It was supposed to be an organization where technical expertise,
Speaker 3: at the request of countries would be used to address
Speaker 3: the needs of those countries. It's become, through its budget,
Speaker 3: an organization that follows the instructions of those who are
Speaker 3: giving it money. And that happens because you keep thinking
Speaker 3: more money will be good, and you're you know you're
Speaker 3: capable of handing the conflict of interest bit and you
Speaker 3: won't be corrupted a sea, But of course you are,
Speaker 3: because you know that to get refunded next year, you
Speaker 3: have to please that funder. So when I worked in WHO,
Speaker 3: I saw this growing. I started in about two thousand
Speaker 3: and two worked there for about eight or ten years,
Speaker 3: and this was a period particularly where private foundations became
Speaker 3: very influential, where the probably private partnerships alongside WHO grew
Speaker 3: up and became influential on it and the COVID response
Speaker 3: is inevitable. Result of that. It was essentially restructuring response
Speaker 3: to outbreaks in order to maximize profit through mass vaccination
Speaker 3: forever a disease that almost really almost no one should
Speaker 3: have been needed to be vaccinated. So the reason for that,
Speaker 3: and the reason they abandoned their old guidelines and did
Speaker 3: that was because that was what they needed to do
Speaker 3: to please their funders. So it's who is a tool
Speaker 3: of others. It's supposed to be a tool of countries,
Speaker 3: and it should be a temporary tool until the country
Speaker 3: stand on their own feet. Has become a fol of
Speaker 3: the pharmaceutical industry and biotech and those who invest in it. Yeah,
Speaker 3: so I think you know, Shane Jones is arriets. It
Speaker 3: is not contributing. Now, there's no reason for it to
Speaker 3: grow because actually infectious disease mortality has been steadily declining
Speaker 3: to spital the hype, and over the last many decades,
Speaker 3: the mortality from outbreaks and from pandemics has been declining.
Speaker 3: So COVID was an outlier which very likely was not
Speaker 3: a natural outbreak, and certainly many of the deaths from
Speaker 3: covid iatrogenic. There's really little doubt about that with the
Speaker 3: mass use of drugs like remdeser beere and very early
Speaker 3: intubation early on in the pandemic, so people panicked. They
Speaker 3: did that. That happened because there was a huge media
Speaker 3: operation to make people panic. And the now mortality is
Speaker 3: almost zero, and most of that is from people gaining
Speaker 3: well one from people gaining natural immunity too, because if
Speaker 3: you just leave it as you would treat a common cold,
Speaker 3: then for the vast majority of the population, that'll be
Speaker 3: what it is. So it was used as a tool
Speaker 3: to please these funders. But apart from that, there is
Speaker 3: very little in the way of our breaks astray, the
Speaker 3: mass cholera immortality, the plague, that yellow fever and so on.
Speaker 3: We have very small outbreaks. Now these are things of
Speaker 3: the past. So there's no good reason for the WHA
Speaker 3: to be growing at all. It should be shrinking.
Speaker 2: But it's not going to.
Speaker 3: It's not going to unless there's a radical change in
Speaker 3: the way it's run. And it is hard to see
Speaker 3: how that would happen because an organization like that, you've
Speaker 3: got to do that change to a large extent through
Speaker 3: people there who would be extremely resistant.
Speaker 2: I know that we've discussed this before from one aspect anyway,
Speaker 2: But let me let me just raise it again. What
Speaker 2: would be the I'm going back to the conflict between
Speaker 2: Shane Jones just to use this as an example and journalists,
Speaker 2: because the journalists are pretty much all the same. They're
Speaker 2: they're the same over the over the American election as well.
Speaker 2: They can't help themselves. But if New Zealand were to
Speaker 2: not participate in the in the changes that are being
Speaker 2: made by the World Health Organization, what would be the downside?
Speaker 3: None for New Zealand, it would save some money and
Speaker 3: it would not be essentially forced to build a large
Speaker 3: surveillance network to find viral variants and then risk you know,
Speaker 3: being having to lock down and destroy your economy again
Speaker 3: to assuage the needs of in Geneva. So there are
Speaker 3: plenty of diseases for New Zealanders to deal with. Most
Speaker 3: people die of cancer, heart disease, cutting, vascular disease, et cetera.
Speaker 3: There are still significant rheumatic heart disease and other infection
Speaker 3: based mortality in all populations, in particularly indigenous populations around
Speaker 3: the Pacific and so on. There's plenty for New Zealand
Speaker 3: to do without participating in a sort of essentially fast
Speaker 3: this falsification of risk. So there's nothing that would matter
Speaker 3: unless you got to a situation where the World Bank
Speaker 3: and the IMF, who are very on board with this
Speaker 3: agenda of who decided to punish New Zealand. And New
Speaker 3: Zealand now I think has a very large initial debt
Speaker 3: which would encouraging the COVID response like many countries, so
Speaker 3: that makes you much more vulnerable to that. So that's
Speaker 3: I mean, we'll come back to the US, but this
Speaker 3: is where it'll be interesting to see whether the international
Speaker 3: political situation has changed such that you can't be punished
Speaker 3: for that, because that will take a lot of the
Speaker 3: wind out of the sales of the pandemic.
Speaker 2: I don't know whether this is international or spreads wider
Speaker 2: than New Zealand, but I've noticed that the people who
Speaker 2: are deserving of some degree of condemnation over their behavior
Speaker 2: and attitude toward the administration of the last few years
Speaker 2: are the same people who are promoting and pushing hardest
Speaker 2: for New Zealand to participate in the in the latest
Speaker 2: changes being made by the Who.
Speaker 3: Why would that be, do you think? Yeah, I think
Speaker 3: it's a range of motivations. Some people. I think they
Speaker 3: do very well from funding from the pharmaceuticals who are
Speaker 3: very much behind this agenda, because they see hundreds of
Speaker 3: billions of dollars of profit in the long term. So
Speaker 3: they're doing what they're paid for probably or what they were.
Speaker 3: They're saying what they see as the best potential for
Speaker 3: them to get paid in the future. I think others,
Speaker 3: as we said that they genuinely believe this story, that
Speaker 3: they just assume that these large institutions would be telling
Speaker 3: the truth, that they have expertise, which they don't, and
Speaker 3: that they are you know, so they just go along
Speaker 3: and they're not going to stop and think deeply because
Speaker 3: they've all been told that anyone who does is al
Speaker 3: right wing conspiracy theorists and they're likely to be vilified.
Speaker 3: So they you know, if you want a good job
Speaker 3: in global health, international public health, you don't stick your
Speaker 3: head out like that. And yeah, I think others they
Speaker 3: may be realizing, they may dip down that this was
Speaker 3: a mistake, if you know, for whatever the reason they
Speaker 3: went on in the first place. But it's really difficult
Speaker 3: to admit that if you sort of state to your
Speaker 3: reputation got really famous in the media, et cetera. On
Speaker 3: saying one thing, it's pretty difficult to backtrack then and say, well, actually,
Speaker 3: pandemics aren't at big risk to humankind, and you know,
Speaker 3: we have much bigger things to deal with. COVID was
Speaker 3: a huge overreaction. We should have known better, and let's
Speaker 3: do better now that there's not many people doing that.
Speaker 3: Most of the noise among those people is that we
Speaker 3: should have locked down faster and more strongly, which it's
Speaker 3: essentially saying we should destroy the economy more for longer.
Speaker 3: There is no good evidence that lockdowns did anything except
Speaker 3: slightly slow transmission. So it is different perhaps in island states,
Speaker 3: where you know you could keep it out for longer,
Speaker 3: But now you haven't gained over the four years in
Speaker 3: terms of or cause mortality compared to other countries that
Speaker 3: didn't act in that way. So you're better off over
Speaker 3: the four years, and you have an economy now that
Speaker 3: makes you very vulnerable and is going to have a
Speaker 3: huge impact on your ability to manage your nation's health
Speaker 3: in the future. So I think there's not much doubt
Speaker 3: that it was probably a mistake. Even in New Zealand,
Speaker 3: where there appeared to be as an island, you could
Speaker 3: keep everyone out and sort of pretended the world didn't exist.
Speaker 3: But did I mention? And you wracked up a lot
Speaker 3: of problems?
Speaker 2: Did I mention? I? No, I didn't, And I don't
Speaker 2: think it was I don't think it was mentioned in
Speaker 2: the last conversation we had when you were here midyear.
Speaker 2: But they're still advertising for people to go get the JAB.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, get updated, Get updated, Get updated. The signs
Speaker 2: are out the front of farmer.
Speaker 3: They're stood doing it in the US as well, from
Speaker 3: six months upwards here, for which there is zero evidence
Speaker 3: of benefit.
Speaker 2: Who who pray tell is responsible for that in the States.
Speaker 3: In the States, it's officially CDC, so they have their
Speaker 3: vaccine schedule for children, and from six months up you're
Speaker 3: expected to get a series of MR and a injection
Speaker 3: which they know will concentrate in the over eas of
Speaker 3: young girls and in the livers and adrenal glands of
Speaker 3: girls and boys, et cetera. And they know that healthy
Speaker 3: boys and girls and infants have almost near zero risk
Speaker 3: of dying of COVID sort of less than one million,
Speaker 3: So that there is no logic to any of this
Speaker 3: except the potential for profit and the sort of around
Speaker 3: that the sort of people who put their reputations want
Speaker 3: to preserve them, et cetera. So there's no public health
Speaker 3: rational public health basis that you can really follow to
Speaker 3: justify this.
Speaker 2: So the mRNA vaccine that accumulates in different parts of
Speaker 2: children's bodies does or can do how much damage.
Speaker 3: We don't know because we don't have long studies on
Speaker 3: this or even decent short term studies, so there's no
Speaker 3: even now there are no ongoing studies that they in adults,
Speaker 3: they after six months they lost the control group, so
Speaker 3: we can't compare, but we know the six months for
Speaker 3: the Maderna and Pisa trials there was Maderna there a
Speaker 3: course mortality was the same in the control group and
Speaker 3: the vaccinator group in Maderna. For Pisa there were more
Speaker 3: deaths in the vaccinator group than the control group, so
Speaker 3: it was no effect or negative at six months in adults,
Speaker 3: we don't have good data on any other age group.
Speaker 3: So for each new booster sort of type in in
Speaker 3: the US where they changed to a new variant, they
Speaker 3: tested on I think as eight rats and they see
Speaker 3: if those rats produce antibodies, and they take that as
Speaker 3: the vaccine works, so they don't even have human trials
Speaker 3: on the new versions now, so we have a passive
Speaker 3: and very flawed adverse reporting system of AIRS in the
Speaker 3: US and Australian using and so on have their own.
Speaker 3: They show more high mortality and all severe effects reported
Speaker 3: for associated with the MRI with COVID injections then for
Speaker 3: all other vaccinations combined in the thirty years that FAIRS
Speaker 3: in the US has been running. So that's obviously a
Speaker 3: huge red flag normally, so to go and give that
Speaker 3: sort of thing to infants who like health. Infants don't
Speaker 3: die of COVID almost never. But we know, we don't
Speaker 3: know what if you take, for instance, the accumulation of
Speaker 3: the ovaries. We know, and we knew before they started
Speaker 3: injecting anyone that the lipananoparticles accumulates in the ovaries in
Speaker 3: in rats. It looked at in humans where the humans
Speaker 3: are same, a girl was born with a certain number
Speaker 3: of over so that that determines the length of their
Speaker 3: fertility period when they're an adult. So the way the
Speaker 3: m marina vaccines work, their marinae goes into a cell
Speaker 3: and it lasts quite a long time because it's not
Speaker 3: normal m RNA. It's modified one of their bases is
Speaker 3: modified to make it last much longer. So the story
Speaker 3: about it mRNA lasts only a few days in the cell,
Speaker 3: it's true. But this isn't that sort of m RNA.
Speaker 3: It's a modified The US bas is modified and makes it.
Speaker 3: They did that to make it stay in the cell
Speaker 3: much longer and produce much more protein.
Speaker 2: And that's right, that's right, that's right, from the beginning
Speaker 2: of US, from the beginning right back to how they
Speaker 2: decided it and they knew it.
Speaker 3: So yeah, yes, So it it goes to the cell,
Speaker 3: it causes the machine of the cell to produce a
Speaker 3: toxic protein, spike protein that the body recognizes as a
Speaker 3: foreign protein. So it's to emulates an immune response against
Speaker 3: a protein which is expressed on that cell. So it
Speaker 3: will kill that cell as well, and it will cause
Speaker 3: some local inflammation, which is what happens when you get
Speaker 3: cell death. So if it concentrates in the ovaries, you'll
Speaker 3: get some local inflammation in the ovaries and some cell
Speaker 3: death in the ovaries. If it's in the liver of
Speaker 3: the same et cetera. That's how it works. So it's
Speaker 3: not an unreasonable assumption that you will lose some over
Speaker 3: during that period and you'll have a shorter fertility period
Speaker 3: as an adult. We don't know that, but it's not
Speaker 3: an unreasonable assumption. We will find out in twenty or
Speaker 3: thirty years time when the little girls who have been
Speaker 3: just been vaccinated now go into menopause and will see
Speaker 3: how long they had the fertility period. Yet they're still
Speaker 3: being injected in this situation, and although they are not
Speaker 3: any silyperous of COVID, they've all got everyone by now
Speaker 3: has take COVID and has a pretty good immunity. And
Speaker 3: the CDC did studies that compared directly, you know, did
Speaker 3: you go into hospital did you die just after post
Speaker 3: infection immunity? And you know when you get another infection,
Speaker 3: or if you have vaccinate and you get an infection,
Speaker 3: and there's you're slightly better off with natural immunity than
Speaker 3: the vaccine, and the vaccine on top of natural immunity
Speaker 3: makes almost no discernible difference. So we have all the
Speaker 3: data that says if you've had an infection, you're highly
Speaker 3: unlikely to get severely or and the vaccine won't help
Speaker 3: significantly at all. This is a situation with everyone now.
Speaker 3: So this is CDC data. It's published. The data on
Speaker 3: the biodistribution going to the ovaries, et cetera is published
Speaker 3: by phiz and Biointech and was with the regulatory agencies
Speaker 3: when they have proved the vaccines. Now they also had
Speaker 3: data from rats on an increase in fetal animality. It's
Speaker 3: very significant increase compared to the control group in that
Speaker 3: same experiment. Yet they recommend it for pregnant women. So
Speaker 3: we've been through this period that is actually hard to
Speaker 3: grasp as a public health physician in terms of, you know,
Speaker 3: the recklessness with which this was imposed on particularly is
Speaker 3: very vulnerable groups. Pregnant women and young children are usually
Speaker 3: the very last ones to be injected with a new
Speaker 3: drug and only after years of experience and then very
Speaker 3: careful studies. So none of that happened normally with genetic
Speaker 3: therapeutic which is what these are and what they were
Speaker 3: classified as Bymadena. You have to do carstinogenicity studies to
Speaker 3: see if it courses cancer. You have to do terratogenicity studies,
Speaker 3: which is what they did in the rats, but you
Speaker 3: need to watch that in humans as well to see
Speaker 3: they fall cause fetal animalities. You have to do that
Speaker 3: with a genetic therapeutic, which is what these are, you
Speaker 3: don't have to do it with a vaccine. So when
Speaker 3: they change the name to vaccine, they did away with
Speaker 3: all the stuff that you have to do for this
Speaker 3: sort of class of pharmaceutical and this is acknowledged in
Speaker 3: the TTA report from Australia, the Australian regulatory agency of
Speaker 3: the Therapeutic Goods Administration. They acknowledged this in the report
Speaker 3: that the name change means that they didn't need to
Speaker 3: do this. So you can imagine if you had an
Speaker 3: existential threat from sort of airborne a bowler which is
Speaker 3: never going to happen, never happened in human history, et cetera.
Speaker 3: But it's in the movies that you might take these
Speaker 3: sorts of risks. But it makes no sense for a
Speaker 3: virus that is associated with death on average in Europe
Speaker 3: at the age of about eighty to eighty three, and
Speaker 3: those people are the sick ones at that age, not
Speaker 3: the well ones. And that's what we faced with COVID.
Speaker 3: That's what we knew were facing with COVID from the
Speaker 3: first quarter of twenty twenty and is published in Land.
Speaker 3: So that is what we're dealing with that is what happened.
Speaker 3: I think that has got a lot to do with
Speaker 3: why we keep seeing this push and keep seeing this pushed,
Speaker 3: rather than people sitting back and saying, this is what
Speaker 3: we actually did, because it's a big thing to admit.
Speaker 2: Well, let me cut to this paragraph. Knowing fully the
Speaker 2: impact of their actions and you've said a couple of
Speaker 2: times now they knew what they would, they knew what
Speaker 2: they were doing, and they knew what they were causing.
Speaker 2: Knowing fully the impact of their actions, who helped force
Speaker 2: over one hundred million additional people into severe food insecurity
Speaker 2: and poverty, up to ten million additional girls into child marriage.
Speaker 2: And when you mentioned this before, I don't think you
Speaker 2: mentioned sexual slavery.
Speaker 3: Well, that's what charm marriage is. Yeah, well, yeah, it's
Speaker 3: sexual sorer rate, etcetera. So that you know, you take
Speaker 3: a thirteen year old girl a new stick with an
Speaker 3: old man. That's what you're doing, isn't it. Where does
Speaker 3: the figure though?
Speaker 2: People? You know, anybody who was being interrogative would say
Speaker 2: to you, where do you get the figure of ten
Speaker 2: million pucked out of the.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's from UNICF. That's from UNICF, The United Nations
Speaker 3: Children educational finish whatever. The official UN Agency for Children.
Speaker 3: What are you use suggesting that they're trust So that's published. No,
Speaker 3: But they are like other agencies. They have a mix
Speaker 3: of people. They put out some as did WHO, some
Speaker 3: early on, some very good data and modeling and so
Speaker 3: on the likely harms of this intervention. So you have
Speaker 3: to remember that in twenty nineteen, late twenty nineteen, about
Speaker 3: October November, WHO put out their pandemic influenza recommendations, which
Speaker 3: essentially say, don't do this under no circumstances, closed borders,
Speaker 3: do this sort of mass tests and trace et cetera.
Speaker 3: So or you know the big features of COVID, and
Speaker 3: they point out that if you put people out of
Speaker 3: work for seven to ten days, you're likely to start
Speaker 3: seeing overall negative outcomes, particularly in low income people because
Speaker 3: of the the harm to the economy and their income, etcetera.
Speaker 3: So UNISEF also, you know they put out at the
Speaker 3: end of or in early twenty twenty one estimates that
Speaker 3: were almost a quarter of million dead children just from
Speaker 3: lockdowns in South Asia, so India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, et cetera.
Speaker 3: Six countries, almost a quarter million children. There are almost
Speaker 3: no children are dying from COVID that the World Bank
Speaker 3: put out estimates in low income countries, for every person
Speaker 3: that was saved by lockdowns, probably about two people died.
Speaker 3: One point seven to two people died. It's the World Bank,
Speaker 3: which is the same organization pushing the whole thing. So
Speaker 3: these organizations are not that. They're large organizations and they
Speaker 3: have some people in them who are trying to work
Speaker 3: against the tide and actually get sensible data out. And sorry, no,
Speaker 3: I was just going to say, I mean, it's not
Speaker 3: made up. These are some say ten million girls. That's
Speaker 3: because if you close schools and you're impoverished families, particularly
Speaker 3: in South Asia, subs are in Africa and South America,
Speaker 3: then we know that a lot of girls will come
Speaker 3: out of school and they will be married off for
Speaker 3: various reasons including the family doesn't feel that they can
Speaker 3: afford to keep them anymore. And so this is what happens.
Speaker 3: This is well recognized. You know, there are organizations like
Speaker 3: There's a Child Not Bride that pre COVID that were
Speaker 3: quite prominent in trying to reduce child marriage and noting
Speaker 3: that poverty and is a big driver and keeping kids
Speaker 3: in school is a big way of stopping it. We
Speaker 3: heard nothing from them, so these figures aren't And this
Speaker 3: is where I say, you know, this wasn't unexpected. It
Speaker 3: was known that this sort of response would have these
Speaker 3: sorts of outcomes, so it was intentional. Then the response
Speaker 3: was intentional, and they knew that it would have this
Speaker 3: collateral damage and they knew that the disease they were
Speaker 3: doing it for, so in Sub Saharan Africa would kill
Speaker 3: very very few people because half the population there is
Speaker 3: under twenty. They're essentially children, and only about one less
Speaker 3: than one percent of populations over seventy five, which is
Speaker 3: the high risk of COVID. So yeah, so it was
Speaker 3: intentional to do these lockdowns.
Speaker 2: What would you say was the morality level of the
Speaker 2: people who you're discussing And you can stretched wider than
Speaker 2: that in the field, but that they know what's going
Speaker 2: to happen, they know what they're doing, but they do
Speaker 2: it anyway. Where is the morality level there or is
Speaker 2: there not? Doesn't seem very high.
Speaker 3: So we can all do this, I mean, we can
Speaker 3: all talk ourselves into we can convince ourselves if we
Speaker 3: really try, that something that is bad is necessary or good.
Speaker 3: And you know, Unfortunately, we have to do this because
Speaker 3: and you can pretend that the virus is an existential threat.
Speaker 3: And it's pretty easy to do that because you sort
Speaker 3: of get on board with your colleagues and you see
Speaker 3: each other up and here we are saving the words
Speaker 3: from a deadly virus as we kept hearing, you know,
Speaker 3: twenty four to seven and all that stuff. So you
Speaker 3: just you can get yourself into this mindset, particularly in groups,
Speaker 3: where you can then convince yourself as a group that
Speaker 3: you know there's going to be some damage, but you're
Speaker 3: saving the world. And if you stop and you sit
Speaker 3: on a mountain and you stop and you think carefully
Speaker 3: through it, you realize that this is rubbish. But as
Speaker 3: long as you stay in the group and you keep
Speaker 3: seeing each other along, then I think you can sort
Speaker 3: of do this. And so you know, it's how crowds work.
Speaker 2: And well, I'm not trying to go down I'm not
Speaker 2: trying to go down a conspiracy path. But considering that
Speaker 2: there are people involved at the very top of the
Speaker 2: money making tree that this is who believe that the
Speaker 2: world is overpopulated, but they have contributed greatly to this scenario.
Speaker 2: The negative side of it is there any natural conclusion
Speaker 2: or possible natural conclusion we can come to over that.
Speaker 3: Well, you could draw that, But if you're trying to
Speaker 3: kill people, I think there's better ways of doing it.
Speaker 3: If if you're you know, another effect of this is
Speaker 3: that there's a big action in reproductive health. So there's
Speaker 3: an increase in birth rate in Sub Saharan Africa as well.
Speaker 3: So this isn't going to reduce the world's population overall.
Speaker 3: Is probably going to increase it because poverty tends to
Speaker 3: lead to more children born as a sort of insurance policy,
Speaker 3: and so because you can't access contraception, et cetera. So
Speaker 3: I don't think this will reduce the world's population. I
Speaker 3: think it will make it much much poorer. But hold,
Speaker 3: I mean there is a conspiracy, of course there is.
Speaker 3: Any conspiracy is some people getting together and making a
Speaker 3: plan and not telling other people about it. That's what
Speaker 3: a conspiracy is, and that's that's how you do business.
Speaker 3: If you're running a company, if you're running Pisa or something,
Speaker 3: and you come up with a few other companies a
Speaker 3: way of making selling a lot of stuff, which is
Speaker 3: your job as CEO, and making a lot of money
Speaker 3: out of it for your investors and shareholders. You're not
Speaker 3: going to go and tell everyone, Okay, we're going to
Speaker 3: do this because we want to make lots of money.
Speaker 3: We want to make hundreds of billions of dollars from
Speaker 3: silling a vacci you say we're saving the world. So
Speaker 3: of course there's a conspiracy in that there is people
Speaker 3: trying to make lots of money out of global health
Speaker 3: and they're not telling everyone exactly what. They're not putting
Speaker 3: it in those words. They're not telling everyone they're there
Speaker 3: to make money. And for the shareholders, they're telling everyone
Speaker 3: they're trying to save us. So but they are trying
Speaker 3: to make money. That's a job. So it's a conspiracy
Speaker 3: because they're running a business. That's say, run a business,
Speaker 3: you have plans that you don't fully divulge to others,
Speaker 3: to the world. So I think you can explain this
Speaker 3: as a huge sort of business case that was completely
Speaker 3: devoid of morals and any breaks on conflict of interest,
Speaker 3: et cetera, and was facility hated by these large agencies
Speaker 3: that have become dependent on these same private entities. So
Speaker 3: of course there are people who people among these who
Speaker 3: want to have less people in the world and in
Speaker 3: a way I can sort of understand that. Wouldn't it
Speaker 3: be nice to go to the beaches not crowded. Wouldn't
Speaker 3: be nice not to have traffic jams every time you
Speaker 3: go to work. Great, you know, more green fields, et cetera.
Speaker 3: So that's a nice thing. But it's also nice to
Speaker 3: have humans. And here we are, We got eight billion humans,
Speaker 3: and humans are great. So you know, people can say
Speaker 3: to you they'd like to have less people in the world,
Speaker 3: and that's not a bad thing in itself to say,
Speaker 3: as long as they're not saying and therefore we want
Speaker 3: to kill lots of other people to get there. And
Speaker 3: I think if you want to do that, you would
Speaker 3: have a better virus than salas Kobe two, and you
Speaker 3: would probably go further along the path of toxic responses
Speaker 3: to it. So I don't think that that was the
Speaker 3: primary driver at all. I think it was more making
Speaker 3: a lot of money, and there are some other things
Speaker 3: in the background. There is a push for things like
Speaker 3: central bank digital currency, which is not I mean, there's
Speaker 3: not a conspiracy there the central banks and someone say
Speaker 3: they want this. A bank of interudicial sentiments says it
Speaker 3: wants this cast and has talked about their head. To
Speaker 3: do that, you need people ideally to be poorer and
Speaker 3: to be more dependent on government and to have you know,
Speaker 3: digital ideas and digital transactions that you can then use
Speaker 3: to sort of control their lives their lives and oh,
Speaker 3: you know, that's that's what they say. They want central
Speaker 3: bank digital currency for it will allow you to control
Speaker 3: how much people travel, how what they eat, where they go,
Speaker 3: who they meet. So I think there are a lot
Speaker 3: of people who don't just want money, they want this
Speaker 3: sort of fascist eight globally. And that's always been the
Speaker 3: case in human existence, is why would it go away?
Speaker 3: And COVID was and this whole pandemic agenda is a
Speaker 3: huge opportunity to do that because it provides the fear
Speaker 3: that you need to make people do things that they
Speaker 3: wouldn't normally do. So in the nineteen eighties in Australia
Speaker 3: they tried to bring in a digital National Idea just
Speaker 3: National Idea card, and there was a huge outcry and
Speaker 3: it's just killed the whole idea. They're doing it now
Speaker 3: and no one blinks because they've managed to get people's
Speaker 3: mindset to think that the government is saving them from
Speaker 3: existential crises. Whether it's it's pandemics, or it's a climate crisis,
Speaker 3: or its terrorism, whatever, And they need to allow the
Speaker 3: government to know where they are and where they're spending
Speaker 3: their money and what they're doing all the time so
Speaker 3: that they can be kept safe from all these things.
Speaker 3: And I think that is somewhat deliberate, or is quite deliberate,
Speaker 3: because people want to do that in order to have
Speaker 3: control over others and even further concentrate wealth, etc. And
Speaker 3: it's a sort of feudalism. That's the normal way that
Speaker 3: human society works, unless you constantly fight against it. The
Speaker 3: word you can wait for him. This is what they
Speaker 3: talk about essentially with their great reset is essentially a
Speaker 3: stakeholder capitalism is essentially feudalism.
Speaker 2: Well, we said we would revert to the American election
Speaker 2: briefly at least, and that would appear to be the
Speaker 2: right time to do it, considering you were just talking
Speaker 2: of the CBDC, and let's throw into the mix the
Speaker 2: fact that Trump has made it very clear that he
Speaker 2: will ban it and will not allow it while he
Speaker 2: is in any position to stop it. What comment would
Speaker 2: you make on that.
Speaker 3: I think it's great.
Speaker 2: Yeah, not only not any great, fantastically.
Speaker 3: I mean it's it doesn't solve the problem completely. Obviously,
Speaker 3: they essentially did what you want to do with CBDC.
Speaker 3: They did that for instance in Canada during the Truckees effort,
Speaker 3: and they you know that they people just had their
Speaker 3: bank accounts closed. And so it turns out Millennia Trump
Speaker 3: had a bank account closed in twenty twenty. Yep, so
Speaker 3: did Baron Trump. I mean, what on earth? So that
Speaker 3: they're already trying to make it hard to live financially
Speaker 3: for people, but we don't need CBDC. There's a great
Speaker 3: short video out probably not on YouTube but on other channels.
Speaker 3: So it's the Minneapolis Fed Federal Reserve chairman talking about this,
Speaker 3: saying like, why on earth would Americans want this? We
Speaker 3: manage perfectly fine where their finances. Now, why do you
Speaker 3: want the government to be to control everything you do?
Speaker 3: It makes no sense from a public viewpoint. We don't.
Speaker 3: It's not saving us from anything, it's just imposing more
Speaker 3: more control over us. So why would anyone?
Speaker 2: So who was that? You said, Indianapolis? It's a Minianapolis
Speaker 2: Reserve bank.
Speaker 3: Reserve bank. Yeah, So it's floating around on the internet.
Speaker 3: It's in a few times. It's a good video. He's
Speaker 3: just arguing, sensibly saying, why would people you know, you
Speaker 3: can't well population, you want this imposed on you.
Speaker 2: Well, the answer, the answer is, of course you can
Speaker 2: make something like that, and they and they do make
Speaker 2: it appealing because you don't have to I mean, the
Speaker 2: next the next thing would be that you'll have a
Speaker 2: chip in your hand that will happen one day. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so you don't need to never lose your keys, you never,
Speaker 2: You don't have to worry about anything and just carry
Speaker 2: on and life's easy to go.
Speaker 3: To the supermarket. You just wave here, hand over the
Speaker 3: reader and there you go.
Speaker 2: Well, who wouldn't who wouldn't wanted them? And my response
Speaker 2: immediately is look at the look at the change in
Speaker 2: that election we've just well just mentioned of. I only
Speaker 2: heard this morning that there was a swing of eleven
Speaker 2: points for women under thirty to Trump.
Speaker 3: Yeah, young people very strongly voted and now swung in
Speaker 3: that direction, which is really interesting actually and not I
Speaker 3: think what the other side expected. So well, the only
Speaker 3: shift in African Americans, a shift in Latino voters, et cetera.
Speaker 3: Because you know, it's it's been an interesting time in
Speaker 3: the US. I'm very surprised actually there. I come for
Speaker 3: a number of reasons. But like many people, I thought
Speaker 3: Trump was terrible the first time he was elected because
Speaker 3: I listened to the media, and the media had nothing good.
Speaker 3: What's over to say about this person? If you spend
Speaker 3: the time and you listen to one two three hour
Speaker 3: long long form interviews with him, then you get a
Speaker 3: very different picture of who this person is. And you know,
Speaker 3: I don't know why the media is so against him,
Speaker 3: but if there's someone like that, is that important you
Speaker 3: should sit down and actually make up your own minds
Speaker 3: and not have your mind made up by someone else.
Speaker 2: And well, it's called it's called group thinkers, you know,
Speaker 2: and it has quite a history now.
Speaker 3: But it's worse than that. This is propaganda, isn't it.
Speaker 3: It's I mean, we were told constant that this person
Speaker 3: was far right, racist, misogynists, whatever. But if you any
Speaker 3: anti abortion, anti this, and anti that, and if you
Speaker 3: listen to him, you've actually got pretty rational approaches to
Speaker 3: these issues, but they almost never get reported in the media.
Speaker 3: And he's someone who talks off the cuff a lot,
Speaker 3: which is dangerous but for a politician, but is also
Speaker 3: somewhat refreshing. We're so used to people just having teleprompters
Speaker 3: and so on, or saying what their focus group told
Speaker 3: them to say. So sometimes he says things in a
Speaker 3: way that you sort of think, oh, no, why do
Speaker 3: you say that way? Because people take it the wrong way.
Speaker 3: But if you put it in the context of a
Speaker 3: half hour hour long interview, then it starts to make sense.
Speaker 3: And I think a lot of people saw this because people,
Speaker 3: and probably much more than news in but the US
Speaker 3: populace has turned massively away from mainstream media, and so
Speaker 3: that people listen to podcasts. I will listen to the
Speaker 3: podcast with Joe Rogan or with Tucker Carlson or something,
Speaker 3: and they'll hear a Trump or a putt In or
Speaker 3: Kamala Harris, if you'll do it or etc. Talk for
Speaker 3: a long time, and you can start to get an
Speaker 3: idea of what they're really thinking, whereas you can't do
Speaker 3: that by a journalist who is and you know, there's
Speaker 3: about ninety seven percent of US journalists are on one
Speaker 3: side of politics and three percent on the other. When
Speaker 3: they pull them and journalists openly say now that their
Speaker 3: job is advocacy, not reporting the news. So that they
Speaker 3: see their job as trying to turn the country into
Speaker 3: what they consider as a better place. So the propagandas
Speaker 3: so most of what we get now on mainstream media
Speaker 3: in the US is propaganda and not news, and I
Speaker 3: think people have which is a refreshing part of this.
Speaker 3: People have realized that on a very large scale.
Speaker 2: They have in the States obviously, but not so much elsewhere.
Speaker 2: We've still got the same. Yeah, simple journalists I'm trying
Speaker 2: to be as kind as I can who don't understand
Speaker 2: how it could have happened and continue to write the
Speaker 2: crap that they have written all along. I am thinking
Speaker 2: of one or two in particular.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean it happened because this was a person
Speaker 3: who can actually articulate policy at length. You know, take
Speaker 3: Charlotteville or something. He did not say, just good people
Speaker 3: on both sides at Charlotteviell. You know, this is something
Speaker 3: I only found two or three years later. Yeah, I
Speaker 3: mean he said he specifically excluded white supremacists from that.
Speaker 3: So it's the opposite of how it was reported. People
Speaker 3: have seen so much of that here that I think
Speaker 3: the media has just lost credibility. But you know, you
Speaker 3: had one side that spent only a third of the money,
Speaker 3: but who had very long speeches and very long interviews
Speaker 3: and articulated a wide variety of policy alternatives. They said,
Speaker 3: what they're planning to do? You had another side. If
Speaker 3: there are clear policies, I miss them, And I think
Speaker 3: people are struggling to the people struggle to figure out
Speaker 3: what the actual policy is, apart from trying to keep
Speaker 3: Trump out. But that's not a policy that you're going
Speaker 3: to went on. So, yeah, they didn't articulate any policy,
Speaker 3: and they broke down so so and that they clearly
Speaker 3: did not tell the truth to the American public about
Speaker 3: the state of the previous president and et cetera. So
Speaker 3: you know, I can't see how journalists struggle with that
Speaker 3: the left of polities and what the left used to be.
Speaker 3: But if if you're a sort of pro Democrat or
Speaker 3: pro republic whatever, it's hard to argue I think with
Speaker 3: what I just said, because that's blatantly in front of everyone.
Speaker 2: Now, before you tell me that you've had enough, I've
Speaker 2: got a couple of other things. So we should we
Speaker 2: should move on, at least at least briefly two, two
Speaker 2: or three other matters. If I may, I want to
Speaker 2: mention Joy Battaria, one of the three medical people who
Speaker 2: came up with the.
Speaker 3: Great Barrington.
Speaker 2: Yes, and at first of all, I didn't understand what
Speaker 2: on earth the Great Barrington thing was. And then once
Speaker 2: I got a grasp, of course I.
Speaker 3: Knew it was just orthodox public health. Well, there was
Speaker 3: a Martin Kodolf and symmetric uption. They didn't come up
Speaker 3: with anything new, which is why it is so important
Speaker 3: that they just articulated clearly orthodox public health exactly. Now.
Speaker 2: I had cold Off on the podcast fairly early in
Speaker 2: the piece and wish i'd had Betacharia, but I never tried.
Speaker 2: But I see that he was just awarded a major
Speaker 2: international scientific prize.
Speaker 3: You see that. Yeah, I can't remember what it was,
Speaker 3: but I did. I know Jay, he's a very nice person. Yes,
Speaker 3: these people should be getting prizes because they stood up
Speaker 3: at considerable cost lost. Yeah, and they were just insisting
Speaker 3: on telling the truth that they were talking orthodox public health. Asendy,
Speaker 3: They're talking about what we knew is true. For a
Speaker 3: lot of it's just common sense. You don't even have
Speaker 3: to be a public health physician to know that if
Speaker 3: you massively impoverish people and close down economy. Then that's
Speaker 3: going to make health generally worse in the future. I
Speaker 3: mean that's pretty obvious. So and that is why that's
Speaker 3: what the great Barents and Declace is about, is just
Speaker 3: you will cause more harm if you close down the
Speaker 3: health system, closed down the economy for something like this,
Speaker 3: rather than just concentrating on the people who are actually
Speaker 3: at risk and addressing their needs.
Speaker 2: The Australian COVID Inquiry report now the risk of treading
Speaker 2: on Ramesh the Cursed Toes. He's declared it not fit
Speaker 2: for purpose?
Speaker 3: Have you read it? I haven't read it yet, no
Speaker 3: report on it. I think it's much like the others.
Speaker 3: It says should have done more stuff, more quickly, and
Speaker 3: it does and go into the the harms I've seen
Speaker 3: short summar.
Speaker 2: Reason we've we've got we've got something. I think we've
Speaker 2: still got something underway here. It's it's hard to tell sometimes,
Speaker 2: but it's it's going to fall into the same category
Speaker 2: and there'll be a follow up. I think I trust
Speaker 2: that it might might might be might get honest, do
Speaker 2: you think that one day the people who are and
Speaker 2: I'm thinking particularly of ex prime ministers and the and
Speaker 2: their lot will be recognized appropriately for what they did.
Speaker 3: I think they will eventually, because when people look back
Speaker 3: and do their studies on this in thirty or forty
Speaker 3: year is time ye know that there there's this big
Speaker 3: dip in the economy, there's an increase in debt. They
Speaker 3: will see that as we know now. I mean, of course,
Speaker 3: what I tell you wasn't any better, is generally worse
Speaker 3: in countries that had strict measures compared to those that didn't.
Speaker 3: And there is this huge impact on basic human rights
Speaker 3: and so on that the world been fighting for for
Speaker 3: so long and then just went backwards so many steps.
Speaker 3: So I think in the future it'll be recognized as
Speaker 3: a huge mistake. I doubt that it will directly impact
Speaker 3: any of these people. I don't think anyone political is
Speaker 3: going to go to jail or something for this, and
Speaker 3: I'm not sure that. I mean, some of them are
Speaker 3: actually extreme, and the one you're talking about is recognized
Speaker 3: as fairly extreme globally. But politicians who were in a
Speaker 3: really difficult situation with this, and I think we have
Speaker 3: to recognize this put yourself in their shoes. The whole
Speaker 3: media was against it, and the media was on the
Speaker 3: side of big farm totally along with hundreds of billions
Speaker 3: of dollars of effort. And if they stood and said,
Speaker 3: as Prince of Sweden did, they weren't going to do this.
Speaker 3: Every death is pinned on them, So it was likely
Speaker 3: political suicide. Having said that, I didn't see any leaders
Speaker 3: sit down in front of the nation for a couple
Speaker 3: of hours and just talk through like these are the facts.
Speaker 3: This is the age people dying, this is the comorbidities.
Speaker 3: If we close down, we're not going to help all
Speaker 3: these other people, and we're going to do this huge
Speaker 3: economic harm and that's going to mean longer waiting lists
Speaker 3: and less money for cancer treatment, and less money for
Speaker 3: heart disease, less money for kids' illnesses, et cetera in
Speaker 3: the future. So what are you doing. If we had
Speaker 3: that conversation and there was a politician anywhere brave enough
Speaker 3: to do that, I suspect that a lot of populations
Speaker 3: would have sided with them. But that aside, you know,
Speaker 3: I think they were just trying to avoid being classed
Speaker 3: in the media and by a lot of the population
Speaker 3: who were just brainwashed as murderers. I mean, maybe I'm
Speaker 3: being over nice, I don't know, but I think that
Speaker 3: sort of explains why so many went along with it
Speaker 3: and very politicians stood up.
Speaker 2: I think it reflects on the politicians or the standard
Speaker 2: of politicians that we now accept in the main.
Speaker 3: Oh, it certainly does that. Yeah, and just on I
Speaker 3: know Australian politicians were speaking us in similar that, including
Speaker 3: that you know your recent prime minister. Their career politicians.
Speaker 3: They haven't run a business, they haven't run a farm,
Speaker 3: they haven't worked in a law practice for thirty years
Speaker 3: before they go into politics or medicine whatever. So they
Speaker 3: go through they come out of high school, they go
Speaker 3: into university, they joined student politics, they joined whatever party
Speaker 3: in that politics in the university, and that's their career
Speaker 3: for life is just being a politician. And really that's
Speaker 3: the last person who you would want to run your country.
Speaker 2: You know, you've just because I have no idea, Yep,
Speaker 2: you've just reminded me of something.
Speaker 3: There was.
Speaker 2: There was an article. There was a commentary piece written
Speaker 2: by a university professor here with regard to Jacinda going
Speaker 2: and giving advice to Karmela. Right, No, this is this
Speaker 2: is true, not fiction, not fiction. Apparently it's true. There's
Speaker 2: a picture of the two of them together and et cetera.
Speaker 2: It's just occurred to me. We know that you, Sinda
Speaker 2: worked in a fish and chip shop. Apparently Carmela didn't
Speaker 2: work in McDonald's or no one can, no one can
Speaker 2: prove it.
Speaker 3: They're stroking to find a record.
Speaker 2: Do you do you think maybe that gave her a
Speaker 2: hint by saying, look, it stood being great stead having
Speaker 2: worked in a fish shop. Maybe you worked in McDonald's
Speaker 2: or something along the way.
Speaker 3: I suspect they were told to try to identify at
Speaker 3: least with the ordinary people. A lot of interesting you know,
Speaker 3: it's interesting looking at the all the celebrities socided.
Speaker 2: With most mostly for megabugs. Yeah, they were paid lots
Speaker 2: and lots of money, yes, exactly.
Speaker 3: So so that they're not they're not people who apparently
Speaker 3: were there because of this is what they really believed in,
Speaker 3: or if they did, there was a very fortuitous that
Speaker 3: they're getting paid to stand by the belief. Again, I
Speaker 3: think that people saw this. People recognize, No, they didn't
Speaker 3: know I think at that time how much people are
Speaker 3: being paid, but they can see that people have not really,
Speaker 3: you know, it comes back to actually articulating policies and
Speaker 3: explaining why you're there. Versus just being there and jumping
Speaker 3: up and down and saying never Trump. One side ran
Speaker 3: this very shallow campaign. Guess you know how journalists can't
Speaker 3: recognize that is really interesting because it means that they
Speaker 3: are really they've lost the ability to think rationally to
Speaker 3: a large extent.
Speaker 2: Indeed, not to to put paid to this podcast. Let
Speaker 2: me quote you from the to arrest the degradation of health,
Speaker 2: human rights, and sovereignty. We need an exit strategy from
Speaker 2: unethical public health. This will require an exit strategy from
Speaker 2: approaches mired in conflict of interest and an emphasis on
Speaker 2: evidence rather than corporate profit. And for the sake of
Speaker 2: both donor country taxpayers and the recipients of their support,
Speaker 2: we need an exit strategy from external dependency in order
Speaker 2: to achieve health independence. This is what sustainability and equity means,
Speaker 2: words of which global health profiteers are so fond. These
Speaker 2: changes need to be sect a wide, not just the WHO.
Speaker 2: So what you're saying is that the WHO certainly needs
Speaker 2: to be changed dramatically, but so does the whole sector.
Speaker 2: Is that possible? Yes, it's possible.
Speaker 3: Comes back to what we're saying near the start of
Speaker 3: the discussion that the global health industry is just growing
Speaker 3: and grown more rapidly than us, probably than it has before,
Speaker 3: and it should be going in the other direction. We
Speaker 3: should be building capacity in countries that struggle technically so
Speaker 3: they don't need external help anymore. And that is the
Speaker 3: supposedly the whole point of foreign aid. And this is
Speaker 3: the standard left or right wing, but certainly left wing
Speaker 3: thinking around public health two decades ago. You don't want
Speaker 3: a colonialist situation where you have people from rich countries
Speaker 3: having all the expertise and going and telling people in
Speaker 3: poor countries what to do. You want to build our
Speaker 3: world based much more equally, where all countries have adequate
Speaker 3: capacity and can manage their own health in the way
Speaker 3: that they see fit. And that is what we are
Speaker 3: supposed to be building in international public health. It is
Speaker 3: the opposite of having very strong central institutions that have
Speaker 3: the ability to dictate policy about whether it's vaccination or
Speaker 3: lockdowns or whatever. And it's the opposite of growing these
Speaker 3: central institutions. They should be getting smaller and smaller as
Speaker 3: countries get on their own feet and do things themselves.
Speaker 3: And I don't think people can really argue with that
Speaker 3: from any point of view. Except if you really are
Speaker 3: on the train that believes that the world is facally
Speaker 3: increasing existential threats and we're all going to die if
Speaker 3: we don't all give up our rights to some central
Speaker 3: bureauct to save us. And if you're on that train still,
Speaker 3: then it is properly hard to get you off it.
Speaker 3: But there's no rational basis for believing that we are
Speaker 3: generally living longer, and pandemics outbreaks, infectious his outbreaks are
Speaker 3: getting less deadly overall and are not getting more frequent.
Speaker 3: We're getting better at detecting them, but they're not killing
Speaker 3: more people. So it's illogical to believe that it doesn't
Speaker 3: fit historically, it doesn't fit epidemiologically. If people crust them
Speaker 3: minds back to twenty nineteen, it doesn't fit properly with
Speaker 3: their experience at all. So people need to sort of
Speaker 3: undo the propaganda a bit and go back to that mountain,
Speaker 3: sort of think on their own and think through what
Speaker 3: is actually going on, and that they will realize that
Speaker 3: there is no good reason to keep growing these bureaucracies,
Speaker 3: that poverty was going down before COVID, etc. Countries were
Speaker 3: doing better. The most African countries had rapidly increasing GDPs
Speaker 3: or that was reversed during COVID, the world was getting
Speaker 3: much better. We've had this huge step backwards. But you
Speaker 3: could argue that is because of these institutions need for
Speaker 3: surviving growth is such that they are now really poisoning
Speaker 3: the world and poisoning the countries that they were supposedly supporting.
Speaker 2: I read this morning, it was sent it was sent
Speaker 2: to me from London, an article from The Times on
Speaker 2: the top four. I think it was airlines with the
Speaker 2: luxury section sector and you know, Emirates and Singapore Airlines
Speaker 2: and whatever else, and they've all refitted or in the
Speaker 2: process of refitting, and the luxury level has gone up
Speaker 2: rapidly in first class, business class and in economy plus.
Speaker 2: And I just thought earlier on when you were talking
Speaker 2: about the travel business class travel for these people who
Speaker 2: who fly around between between Nairobi and Geneva and what
Speaker 2: have you, that this was even more incentive for them
Speaker 2: to maintain their positions and grow the company.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, and it's people think the foreign age is
Speaker 3: going to help you desperate people in distant villages. A
Speaker 3: lot of it is going to support these people, and
Speaker 3: it's extremely difficult when you're in that situation which I've
Speaker 3: been in to get out of it because it is
Speaker 3: such a nice and interesting life. You know, people dream
Speaker 3: about this. So yeah, there's all sorts of reasons that
Speaker 3: people in this organization to think of to maintain that situation.
Speaker 2: David being a pleasure. Thank you, always grateful, and I
Speaker 2: hope that we I hope we see you again soon.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I hope. So thanks late, and I have a
Speaker 3: good Christmas early soon.
Speaker 2: Oh listen, I forgot. I'm sorry. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year,
Speaker 2: and stay well. Thank you, thank you. Now in the
Speaker 2: mail room for podcast number two hundred and sixty five,
Speaker 2: we discover missus producer.
Speaker 4: Leyton, how are you?
Speaker 2: You're raring to go?
Speaker 4: I don't need to ask how you are because we
Speaker 4: are a very happy boy after last week's win.
Speaker 2: Somewhat satisfied, you might say, right, And as one might expect,
Speaker 2: most of if not all, of the mail this week
Speaker 2: is on that particular topic. So why don't you roll? Leyton?
Speaker 4: Wayne says, Wow, what an amazing win, not only for
Speaker 4: Donald J. Trump, but also for the American people. Despite
Speaker 4: being up against the Democrat machine, the academic and coast elites, Hollywood,
Speaker 4: the great majority of the biased mainstream media and being
Speaker 4: vastly outspent, the will of the people could not be denied.
Speaker 4: It truly does restore one's face and democracy and common sense.
Speaker 4: Trump's dogged perseverance to keep fighting back despite everything that's
Speaker 4: been thrown against him is truly inspirational. If only we
Speaker 4: had a leader like Trump willing to follow through with
Speaker 4: the courage of their convictions and stand up against the
Speaker 4: idiotic policies and the woke agenda. It's going to be
Speaker 4: fascinating four years, and I suspect the Democrats will be
Speaker 4: much like the Labor Party and refuse to accept the
Speaker 4: fact that they've lost touch with the aspirations and concerns
Speaker 4: of the common people who make up the vast majority
Speaker 4: of the electorate. I saw a snippet of that great
Speaker 4: champion or formerly of the working class, Bruce Springsteen, performing
Speaker 4: a few songs at a Carmela rally. Thought how ironic
Speaker 4: it was that he he was singing for the Democrats
Speaker 4: while the actual working class people he made his fortunes
Speaker 4: singing about. We're now firmly supporting the Republicans in every
Speaker 4: increasing numbers, and I think will no doubt continue to
Speaker 4: do so as long as the Democrats are captured by
Speaker 4: their radical left policies. I'm sure the irony of this
Speaker 4: would not be lost on him. In a moment of
Speaker 4: quiet reflection, kind regards and keep up the good work.
Speaker 2: That's from Wayne. Wayne, I can't disagree with you, except
Speaker 2: maybe on one point. When you get to the level
Speaker 2: of Bruce Springsteen, let's just say that maybe he doesn't
Speaker 2: care as much as you thought about the people.
Speaker 3: So to speak.
Speaker 4: Although those celebrities live such an exalted life, don't they
Speaker 4: that they can't remember what it's like to live paycheck
Speaker 4: to paycheck.
Speaker 2: Yes, and boosted by funds from the Democrat Bank Eileen
Speaker 2: New Zealand's mainstream media and their monotonous meltdowns over the
Speaker 2: Democrats losing the American elections won't solve a thing. Democracy
Speaker 2: reflects the will of the people from all walks of life,
Speaker 2: and that's something the MSM simply cannot fathom. This includes
Speaker 2: free speech freedoms. Their sulky petulance often reflects a collective
Speaker 2: loss of contact with external realities. Metaphorically, it appears like
Speaker 2: grown up thumb sucking and juvenile tongue poking. This includes
Speaker 2: their personality attacks and character assassinations upon Republican politicians. New
Speaker 2: Zealand also has an international reputation and international trade links
Speaker 2: to consider. Mainstream media should engage in big picture thinking
Speaker 2: and perhaps reflect on their myopia and potential mass formation psychosis. Fortunately,
Speaker 2: these days, the public has now choices and independent media,
Speaker 2: independent symposians, and independent podcasts present as a viable alternative.
Speaker 2: After all, variety is the spice of life. I think
Speaker 2: that we should we should invite suggestions as to who
Speaker 2: are the most myopic of the media and journalists at
Speaker 2: this point of time.
Speaker 4: Just saying, Leighton Vincent says, I'm sure you'll be inundated
Speaker 4: with emails after the US election, but firstly, thanks for
Speaker 4: your fantastic podcasts with Patrick Basham. It was so good
Speaker 4: to hear his analysis before and after the vote or
Speaker 4: a brilliant man. This morning, I realized that it should
Speaker 4: be safe to tell people that you'll pro Trump, because
Speaker 4: anti Trump is clearly in the minority. I'm keen to
Speaker 4: see how the mainstream media adapts, if it's willing to
Speaker 4: the new landscape that lays before them, and whether people
Speaker 4: will finally c through the bs we've been fed since
Speaker 4: at least twenty sixteen. The choices in the hands of
Speaker 4: the media as to what they do, particularly if they
Speaker 4: want to remain relevant. Much like the demise of the
Speaker 4: Saint Cindy government here, it's going to be refreshing to
Speaker 4: wake up each day not worried about the US idiots
Speaker 4: and power and what they're planning to do. Thanks again
Speaker 4: for your amazing podcasts, and that's from Vincent instance appreciated.
Speaker 2: Thank you very good. Now from Bryce and Brisbane. We
Speaker 2: both picked Trump to win. I picked that he would
Speaker 2: win by a bit around three hundred, says Bryce. I've
Speaker 2: been following the various polls for some time and was
Speaker 2: of the opinion that the ones the lamestream media were
Speaker 2: posting were wrong. I couldn't understand their logic, but it
Speaker 2: wasn't logic. It was propaganda. This was writ large when
Speaker 2: I was in the States a few months ago. What
Speaker 2: was being written was not what was on the ground.
Speaker 2: The data I was seeing on the Swing States indicated
Speaker 2: to me that they would go to Trump, with maybe
Speaker 2: one or two exceptions. As far as I was concerned,
Speaker 2: the mainstream media was engaging in hope. America rejected woke yesterday,
Speaker 2: America rejected not only the Democratic Party, but how it
Speaker 2: was run and the insane policies they promoted. For me,
Speaker 2: they didn't understand the wider public, only pandering to their
Speaker 2: academic elites who look down on the working class, the unwashed,
Speaker 2: who used to be their base. America rejected them with
Speaker 2: the popular vote, which will sting the Democrat Party, the
Speaker 2: very party that lied and hid Biden's decline with the
Speaker 2: complicity of the majority of the mainstream media. The media
Speaker 2: have lost their way and as we all know, have
Speaker 2: moved from reporting to agenda setting. It was salient to
Speaker 2: note Julle Biden dressed in red on election day. People
Speaker 2: in those circles sent messages with their attire. Quite why
Speaker 2: we down under were able to spot this wind from
Speaker 2: a mile away speaks on how out of touch the
Speaker 2: Democratic Party are. They will need to see an optician
Speaker 2: as they will spend the number of years naval gazing
Speaker 2: after this pearl esque defeat from Bryce. In Brittany Land.
Speaker 4: Layton Steve says, ever heard of this?
Speaker 1: Now?
Speaker 4: It seems the unvaccinated succumb to diabetes more easily. Is
Speaker 4: this the next wave of why you should get jabbed?
Speaker 4: A miracle cure all for the common ills of Western
Speaker 4: societal issues. Keep up the excellent work, enjoying your podcasts weekly.
Speaker 4: Let's hope the election term stays at three years as
Speaker 4: an undoubtedly labor will get in again at some point,
Speaker 4: and the previous six yes stint of wastefulness and incompetence
Speaker 4: was felt like an ardernity that would never end. You
Speaker 4: and I both booked in Trump by a landslide. Trudeau
Speaker 4: is next to feel the voter's wrath. Looking forward to
Speaker 4: this week's podcast, and that's from Steve.
Speaker 2: Steve, along with all the others, very good. This has
Speaker 2: been a pretty damn good week. We're leaving some for
Speaker 2: later reference. By the way, I am a Macintosh, writes
Speaker 2: George A. New Zealand Herald October thirty expresses disbelief. Is
Speaker 2: she a columnist or a letter writer or whatever? I
Speaker 2: don't know, so I start again. Emma Macintosh, New Zealand Herald,
Speaker 2: October thirty is expresses disbelief that her fellow citizens are
Speaker 2: so ignorant that they do not include man made climate
Speaker 2: change in their top five issues affecting the country. It
Speaker 2: comes as no surprise that economic and social issues are
Speaker 2: currently front of mind for most of us, as these
Speaker 2: are the issues that we face in our daily lives. Ever,
Speaker 2: believes that ongoing droughts, floods, fires, and sea level rise
Speaker 2: will bring devastation and calamity to our future generations. This
Speaker 2: raises another issue. A recent study has indicated that our
Speaker 2: kids are suffering increasingly from anxiety. Further, around fifty percent
Speaker 2: stated that climate change was the main cause of their torment. Perhaps, perhaps,
Speaker 2: just maybe it's time for us to temper inflammatory language
Speaker 2: around climate change. Don't rely on it, don't hold your breast,
Speaker 2: George Laton.
Speaker 4: This is from Graham who's written He's copied it to you,
Speaker 4: and he's written to Ericus Stanford, Immigration Minister, and he's
Speaker 4: copied it to Winston and David Seymour, and so the
Speaker 4: letter says, dear missus Stanford. It has been claimed in
Speaker 4: the news media that approximately eighteen thousand Americans are planning
Speaker 4: to flee to our once blessed country because of their
Speaker 4: fear and loathing of President Trump. As you'll understand, that
Speaker 4: makes those people far beyond the pale in regard to
Speaker 4: the obnoxiousness of their opinions and views in comparison to
Speaker 4: the lovely Candice Owens, would you please ensure that such
Speaker 4: dangerous US citizens are disallowed entry to our beautiful country
Speaker 4: where President Trump is respected and honored.
Speaker 3: That's from Graham.
Speaker 2: Graham also very good, missus. Stanford will pay attention. I'm
Speaker 2: sure he is, after all, my MP and yours too,
Speaker 2: I believe, funnily enough, shears later. There you go. Now,
Speaker 2: I commented to somebody a few days ago, I, well,
Speaker 2: let me just state it. I wondered about this. Even
Speaker 2: Trump was saying, after the attempted assassination where he got
Speaker 2: his earclipped, that he believed that God had intervened it.
Speaker 2: Come to that conclusion. And by the way, there appears
Speaker 2: to be some evidence of a verbal kind, at least,
Speaker 2: that he is not alien to the thought of there
Speaker 2: actually being a God. Anyway he was combating. I saw
Speaker 2: him do it at another speech, that he believed that
Speaker 2: God had him turn his head. Now a lot of
Speaker 2: you will laugh at that or mock it. No, none
Speaker 2: of you will knock it, but you might be amused
Speaker 2: by it.
Speaker 3: Anyway.
Speaker 2: I asked the question of somebody whether or not, having
Speaker 2: gone that far, whether it be an endorsement of Trump
Speaker 2: by upstairs with the size of the whim. After all,
Speaker 2: it was not expected by too many people, and it
Speaker 2: was sensational, so it would go hand in glove, would
Speaker 2: it not if you were following that line of thinking.
Speaker 2: So with that in mind, I read you this Wow,
Speaker 2: just wow. The twenty twenty four US election proves that
Speaker 2: God proves that God exists, the editorial of Spectator Australia proclaimed,
Speaker 2: following the first of the two assassination attempts, in which
Speaker 2: mister Trump turned his head at the split second the
Speaker 2: bullet was fired, this magazine, at its cover was unequivocal
Speaker 2: suggesting the hand of God may well have been at
Speaker 2: work and that mister Trump had more work yet to do.
Speaker 2: Looks like we may have been right. Americans had a
Speaker 2: choice to either usher in a new government represented by
Speaker 2: self aware, hard working men like Elon Musk, Joe Rogan,
Speaker 2: and Daniah Dana White, or continue to be lectured by
Speaker 2: self righteous, filthy rich women like Oprah Winfrey, Michelle Obama,
Speaker 2: and Beyonce. Trump and Harris represented those two completely opposing worlds.
Speaker 2: Trump represented the people, Harris represented Hollywood, and in this election,
Speaker 2: the people hated Hollywood. This election proved that minorities actually
Speaker 2: want the same thing as the majority of Americans. They
Speaker 2: want men to be men and women to be women.
Speaker 2: They want their country's borders to be protected, they want
Speaker 2: the cost of living to be affordable, they want justice
Speaker 2: to be done, they want Hollywood to shut the hell up,
Speaker 2: and they want a president who can relate to them.
Speaker 2: And as Patrick Basham said in your podcast, Trump has
Speaker 2: the uncannyability to reach out to normal people, and after
Speaker 2: the insanity of the Biden Harris administration, normality is exactly
Speaker 2: what Trump's administration will deliver. Once again. Spectator Australia rightfully
Speaker 2: proclaims the triumph of Donald Trump is indeed a win,
Speaker 2: win win, a win for America, a win for democracy
Speaker 2: and a win for traditional Western values over the insidious socialist,
Speaker 2: communist Marxist ideology of wokeness. Close quote, Americans have dodged
Speaker 2: a bullet alongside Trump thanked the Lord Almighty for his
Speaker 2: mercy upon us in twenty twenty four. You go bet
Speaker 2: there's a lot of people that think along those lines. Well,
Speaker 2: thank you for your inputness, producer. Can can I see
Speaker 2: you next week later?
Speaker 4: That'll be fabulous.
Speaker 2: I'll look forward to it, maybe before even Thanks so
Speaker 2: much and so to some post election commentary from a
Speaker 2: couple of sources. There are so many of them, I'm
Speaker 2: drowning in them if you can drown in paper. But
Speaker 2: we'll reserve some of them for future usage, I think.
Speaker 2: But leading the pact today will be James Bobard, who, I,
Speaker 2: if I may put it this way, adore his commentaries.
Speaker 2: That is, after the media complained non stop for months
Speaker 2: about Donald Trump offering a duck message on the presidential
Speaker 2: campaign trail. A New York Times headline bewailed his election
Speaker 2: victory on Wednesday morning, America hires a strong man, so
Speaker 2: anyone who cast about it became the moral equivalent of
Speaker 2: a mafia don hiring a hitman. With a question mark.
Speaker 2: The Times news analysts lamented this was a conquering of
Speaker 2: the nation, not by force, but with a permission slip.
Speaker 2: Now America stands on the precipice of an authoritarian style
Speaker 2: of governance never before seen in its two hundred and
Speaker 2: forty eight year history. Now, when I was pre reading this,
Speaker 2: I thought I'm going to have something to say here
Speaker 2: because it's fairly obvious. And then I read the next
Speaker 2: paragraph and I thought, well, I can't better it. So
Speaker 2: this is what Jim said, well, at least never before
Speaker 2: seen by journalists whose knowledge of history doesn't extend back
Speaker 2: beyond Taylor Swift's first best selling album. The notion that
Speaker 2: Trump was a unique threats in American history entitled the
Speaker 2: media to ignore all the civil liberties abuses of the
Speaker 2: Biden Harris administration. Coincidentally, that spared many reporters and editorial
Speaker 2: writers the difficulty of comprehending the policies which they tacitly endorsed.
Speaker 2: The media betrayed freedom of speech, at least for Americaans
Speaker 2: who don't have a journalism degree. Biden administration officials conducted
Speaker 2: potentially quote the most massive attack against free speech in
Speaker 2: United States history close quote. A federal judge concluded, and
Speaker 2: a federal appeals court condemned Team Biden for suppressing millions
Speaker 2: of protected free speech postings by American citizens, mostly by
Speaker 2: Conservatives and Republicans, But most of the media was the
Speaker 2: Sherlock Holmes dog that didn't bark when federal agencies browbeat
Speaker 2: social media companies with endless demands to muzzle and blindfold
Speaker 2: average Americans. Vice presidential candidate j D. Vance raised the
Speaker 2: censorship issue during his debate with Governor Tim Waltz, but
Speaker 2: it got little or no traction beyond his speels. Instead,
Speaker 2: censorship was championed by the media in recent years as
Speaker 2: part of a holy crusade against misinformation, that is, facts
Speaker 2: that are damned inconvenient for the ruling class. Did progressives
Speaker 2: discover a hidden asterisk to the First Amendment that another
Speaker 2: fies constitutional rights for anyone who jokes about COVID vaccine mandates?
Speaker 2: Because it was a self evident truth that Orange Man bad,
Speaker 2: most reporters and pundits exerted little or no effort to
Speaker 2: comprehend or expose Biden administration follies and frauds. Almost all
Speaker 2: the media campaign coverage ignored the risk of World War
Speaker 2: III thanks to the Biden Harris escalation of the Ukraine
Speaker 2: Russia War. Why was there no controversy about Biden providing
Speaker 2: F sixteen jets to Ukraine, potentially enabling Ukraine to attack
Speaker 2: practically anywhere in Russia with US bombs? Or did the
Speaker 2: media believe that they had a moral authority to blindly
Speaker 2: support Ukraine because its president, unlike Putin, supports transgender rights
Speaker 2: that rule do us about the third of the weights stream,
Speaker 2: Maybe half the way through. But it's very good James Beauvard,
Speaker 2: if you want to track it down now. In short,
Speaker 2: these are dangerous times from James Howard Kunstler. People in
Speaker 2: the media are aware of how illegitimately they've done their jobs,
Speaker 2: that they think they're on the verge of being locked up. Now,
Speaker 2: that was a quote from Scott Adams that he's employed.
Speaker 2: You must admit it's a little spooky how quickly and
Speaker 2: rigorously mister Trump intends to deconstruct those parts of the
Speaker 2: government at war with the people. Clean out rogue bureaucrats,
Speaker 2: fire hose the malignant agencies, release and expose their document
Speaker 2: trails on spying, censorship, law fare, and abuse of power.
Speaker 2: The consequence would be the return of consequence in our
Speaker 2: national life. I had to read that twice to grasp.
Speaker 2: But the consequence would be the return of consequence in
Speaker 2: our national life. It's been absent for so long you
Speaker 2: can hardly imagine its power to get people's minds right.
Speaker 2: There are already reports of frenzy among the culpable Department
Speaker 2: of Justice lawyers, and FBI Director Ray is set to
Speaker 2: resign before Trump can fire him. Attorney General Merrick Garland
Speaker 2: has gone radio silent for his own good since election day.
Speaker 2: Expect many abiding mysteries to get unraveled, such as exactly
Speaker 2: how many federal agents did work the crowd around the
Speaker 2: Capitol on j six twenty one, which mister Ray has
Speaker 2: pretended to not be able to discuss due to ongoing investigations.
Speaker 2: Expect to learn more about the pipe bomb caper at
Speaker 2: the DNCHQ a few blocks away the same day. Prepare
Speaker 2: to be amazed at how deeply criminal these schemes were.
Speaker 2: You must wonder if the document treading party is already underway,
Speaker 2: despite calls to preserve all the emails, memos and texts.
Speaker 2: Then there are the poisoned realms of the intel blob
Speaker 2: located at CIA, A, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State,
Speaker 2: Department of Defense, and elsewhere being subject to inquiry and overhaul.
Speaker 2: Think John Brennan, James Clapper, Bill Maher, Michael Atkinson, Mayorcus
Speaker 2: Judge Boseburg, Mary McCord, Colonel Vindman, Senator Warner, Avril Haynes,
Speaker 2: Victoria Newland, Samantha Power, Gina Haspell, Marie Yovanovich, Jen Easterly,
Speaker 2: all their deputies, all their deputies, and many more unknown
Speaker 2: to the public. Some of these names may yet seem
Speaker 2: obscure to you. They were all necked deep in what
Speaker 2: looks a lot like sedition, treason, real conspiracies, not theories.
Speaker 2: Even state officials such as New York Attorney General Lea
Speaker 2: Tisha James, Manhattan DA Elvin Bragg, and Fulton County GA
Speaker 2: DA Panny Willis would be subject to federal charges under
Speaker 2: eighteen USC. Section two four to two, which states willful
Speaker 2: deprovision of constitutional rights acting under color of law. That
Speaker 2: is exactly what the Trump law fare cases amounted to. Then,
Speaker 2: of course, there are the long running rumors of pedophilia
Speaker 2: and human trafficking networks among the elite, the Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 2: list and the p. Diddy list. If these things exist
Speaker 2: and they are released, history would shudder. Then goes on
Speaker 2: and give some examples, but that will do us. There
Speaker 2: is lots of good writing, lots of exposure, and there
Speaker 2: are not going to be easy times for quite a
Speaker 2: lot of people, and for anybody who just might be
Speaker 2: of a different school of thought and think this is
Speaker 2: the authoritarian they're talking about that he's going to turn into.
Speaker 2: He is going to be a dictator. The answer is no.
Speaker 2: This is or would be simply pursuing justice and that
Speaker 2: will take us out for podcast two hundred and sixty five.
Speaker 2: If you would like to correspond, please do latent at
Speaker 2: newstalksb dot co dot nz or Carolyn C. A. L.
Speaker 2: Y N Carolyn at NEWSTALKSB dot co dot nz. We
Speaker 2: shall return with podcasts number two hundred and sixty six
Speaker 2: very shortly in the meantime. As always, thank you for
Speaker 2: listening and we'll talk soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you for more from Newstalks EDB. Listen live on
Speaker 1: air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever
Speaker 1: you go with our podcast on iHeartRadio