Leighton Smith Podcast - Best Of: David Bell - December 25th 2024

with over one hundred and twenty research publications. David explains why New Zealand and other countries should stand their ground and refrain from signing on to changes that the World Health Organization is looking for. It is a very important discussion. And then if you like what you hear, there is another very very good interview with David Bell in Podcasts

two one hundred and sixty five. Just to do a search for the Latenessmith podcast two sixty five and it will find you in the meantime, I wish you an enjoyable listen of course, and Merry Christmas, and may everything be right.

So next time you're in need of an effective antihistamine, call into the pharmacy and ask for Leverix l v rix Leverix and always read the label. Take as directed, and if symptoms persist, see your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland. David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public

health physician a biotech consultant in global health. David is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization the WHO Program Head for Malaria and Febrile Diseases at the Foundation for Innovation of New Diagnostics in Geneva, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue in Washington State in the United States. He is also a guest on this podcast. Has been a guest on this podcast more than month twice, three

maybe four times. And it's very good to welcome you back. I'm appreciative of the fact that you are here. Yeah, thanks for having me back late. It is always it is always a pleasure. I got to say what a quote. I want to quote a lot of things actually in this podcast, but let me start with an example of destructive, unaccountable bureaucratic overreach, which is part of what you opened up with for a column on Brownstone. An example, and

I repeat it, of destructive, unaccountable bureaucratic overreach. Are you taking a stronger stance over I won't say against, but over the World Health Organization that.

years I've been pointing out what is going on. I mean, in the end, you have an organization that has knowingly impoverished the world and that they absolutely knew what they're doing, and it's I think most of your viewers probably don't understand the extent of an additional one hundred million plus people intovere poverty, food deprivation, up to ten million girls in additional in child marriage, increased child labor, a huge increase in national debt in low income countries, which will

translate into them being forced to comply with global predators who prey on such in debted countries. And this is what has happened. I think now it's interesting because that there's a chance at least something may change slightly with the US election. So it's but I think those words are not out of sync with what I've and others

have been saying for quite a while. I was going to show is a massive organization, is a huge bureaucracy, it's grossly out of touch with reality, and it is deliberately misleading countries.

two at variants commentaries. One is written by journalists, the other is written by well politician. Which one of those is closer to the reality.

WHO would term it, misinformation. They are twisting the reality around infectious disease pandemic risk and the costs of dealing with it and the effect that would have. But journalists, I think, by enlarge, don't dig into things like that anymore. They just assume if the World Bank or that G twenty says something, it must be true. So I'm not defending journalists, but I think that's probably where those sorts

of responses come from. So I mean, when that is happening, when the who is doing that as well, then clearly what Shane journesaid makes sense that the who is it is a huge it's not just a who, but the whole wintershal health bureaucracy is it's tens of thousands of people.

Now it is a huge and rapidly growing industry that lives mostly off taxpayer money and mostly in very wealthy countries, and as we saw in COVID, is now no longer really helping, but is increasing the risk support health and impoverishing people, concentrating wealth in the pharmaceutical companies that have very much become influential in it. What these organizations should be doing is helping countries when they're asked to build capacity so that we don't need these organizations anymore. So

that's the op they shouldn't be growing. There was abo IS set up in the late nineteen forties. It was helping countries that came out of colonialism to sort of get on their feet deal with major diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and now those what should what should be happening is US. Countries should be getting on their feet. We shouldn't need

THEO anymore. In anything like you as a large organization, you can have a place where countries meet and so on, but there isn't a place for a growing international health bureaucracy. If we are getting better at medicine in countries, and we're building capacity, and sanitation is getting better, and nutrition

is getting better, et cetera, it should be. And if that's still not the case, if we are seventy or eighty years into WHO and they are seeing that problems are growing and not reducing despite all the improvement in technology and everything in the world, then clearly they're a gross failure anyway, So we should be looking at something else.

in the area of eugenics, colonialism, and European fascism. Now, those last three terms are things that those of the left regale against constantly. And yet here we are, and here you are writing that about an organization that we all know. The bureaucracies either live by growth or die by the growth. So is it fair to say that they're simply thinking of survival.

some of the numbers in COVID. Then the abandonment of science in COVID, which was gross, the abandonment of pretending that mass work and social distinccing and pretending that you should close stop travel when you've got the same virus on both hends of the trouble path, and the essential

completely disregard for human immunity, natural immunity. We had the most expensive of public health program in Africa, or mass vaccination when who knew from their own studies that almost the whole population already had effective immunity against COVID from natural infection. So it's an organization which there's thousands of people.

If you're in an organization for twenty or thirty years, inevitably you sort of lose the edge of the good intent you might have gone in with, and you become you want your pension, which is very extremely good at who so you want to hang out for that, So you want to comply. You have your kids in high school or college or whatever, and they get a seventy five percent education subsidy, get a rental subsidy, you get

very good salary. On top of all this, you get business class travel, five star hotels or the rest of it. So you inevitably, almost everyone, I think, start to think that you're one, you're really important, more important than other people because you've paid so well when you travel in important aircraft seats and get picked up by cars with a blue badge on the door. And secondly, oh, you

see it in all institutions. I think the role of the institution or the existence and the reputation of the institution becomes your primary focus because you think that the world needs your institution and therefore you must protect it. So you know, this is the sort of thing that is the effect of the Catholic Church, for instance, with with the cover up of child sexual abuse in the past, and you see the same thing in the UN actually

for exactly the same issue. Or really the Human Rights Council has been guilty of this in Central African Republic about ten years ago. So you tend to put your organization first and not the supposed goal of the organization. And yeah, I don't know of any bureaucracy anywhere that has worked to put itself out of existence, because that means losing your salary, losing the salary of your team.

But if you're an international organization that is a servant of countries and a servant of populations and your job is to build their capacity, that is actually what you should do. So I can imagine you could structu an organization to do that. It's probably something where people can only stay five or ten years and they have to rotate out anyway, so it doesn't become their permanent home. But once you allow an organization to become a permanent

home for a large bureaucracy. It's not going to work its way out of assistance. It's going to look to grow,

because that's just what human institutions do. And in Who's case, to grow meant throwing away essentially a lot of the conflict of interests rules that they had in the past and getting to bed with large corporations and private sector investors, and so about twenty five percent of their budget now is directly from or directly from private sector, and most of their budget, whether from countries or private sector, is specified so that the funder tells you what you would

do with that money. That's not how Who started. It was supposed to be an organization where technical expertise, at the request of countries would be used to address the needs of those countries. It's become, through its budget, an organization that follows the instructions of those who are giving

up money. And that happens because you keep thinking more money will be good, and you're you know you're capable of handing in the conflict of interest bit and you won't be corrupted at sea, but of course you are, because you know that to get refunded next year, you have to please that funder. So when I worked in WHO,

I saw this growing. I started in about two thousand and two worked there for about eight or ten years, and this was a period particularly where private foundations became very influential, where the probably private partnerships alongside WHO grew up and became influential on it. And the COVID response is the inevitable result of that. It was essentially restructuring response to outbreaks in order to maximize profit through mass vaccination forever a disease that almost really almost no one

should have been needed to be vaccinated. So the reason for that, and the reason they abandoned their old guidelines and did that was because that was what they needed to do to please their funders. So it's WHO is a tool of others. It's supposed to be a tool of countries, so it should be a temporary tool until the countries stand on their own feet. Has become a tool of the pharmaceutical industry and biotech and those who invest in it. Yeah, so I think you know Shane

Jones's variety. It is not contributing. Now, there's no reason for it to grow because actually infectious disease mortality has been steadily declining despite all the hype, and over the last many decades the mortality from outbreaks and from pandemics has been declining. So COVID was an outlier which very likely was not a natural outbreak, and certainly many of the deaths from covid iatrogenic. There's really little doubt about that.

With the mass use of drugs like rendeser bear and very early intubation early on in the pandemic, so people panicked, they do that. That happened because there was a huge media operation to make people panic. Then the now mortality is almost zero, and most of that is from people gaining well one from people gaining natural immunity too, because if you just leave it as you would treat a common cold, then for the vast majority of the population, that'll be what it is. So it was used as

a tool to please these funders. But apart from that, there is very little in the way of out breaks astray, the mass cholor of mortality, the plague, that yellow fever and so on. We have very small outbreaks. Now these are things of the past, so there's no good reason for the who to be growing at all. It should be shrinking.

They can't help themselves. But if New Zealand were to not participate in the changes that are being made by the World Health Organization, what would be the downside?

et cetera. There are still significant rheumatic heart disease and other infection based mortality in all populations, include particularly indigenous populations around the Pacific and so on. There's plenty for New Zealand to do without participating in a sort of essentially fast this falsification of risk. So there's nothing that wouldn't matter unless you got to a situation where the World Bank and the IMF, who are very on board with this agenda of who decided to punish New Zealand.

And New Zealand now I think has a very large natural debt, which I think during the COVID response many countries, so that makes you much more vulnerable to that. So I mean, we'll come back to the US, but this is where it'll be interesting to see whether the international political situation has changed such that you can't be punished for that, because that will take a lot of the wind out of the sales of the pandemic.

the future. I think others, as we said that they genuinely believe this story, that they just assume that these large institutions would be telling the truth, that they have expertise, which they don't, and that they are you know, so they just go along and they're not going to stop and think deeply, because they've all been told that anyone who does is a right wing conspiracy theorist and they're

likely to be vilified. So they you know, if you want a good job in global health, interational public health, you don't stick your head out like that. And I think others they may be realizing, they may dig down that this was a mistake for whatever the reason they went on in the first place. But it's really difficult

to admit that. If you sort of stated to your reputation got really famous in the media, etc. On saying one thing, it's pretty difficult to backtrack then and say, well, actually, pandemics aren't at big risk to humankind, and you know, we have much bigger things to deal with. COVID was a huge overreaction. We should have known better, and let's do better now that there's not many people doing that.

Most of the noise among those people is that we should have locked down faster and more strongly, which it's essentially saying we should destroy the economy more for longer. There is no good evidence that lockdowns did anything except slightly slow transmission. So it is different perhaps in island states where you know you could keep it out for longer.

But now you haven't gained over the four years in terms of all cause mortality compared to other countries that didn't act in that way, So you're not better off over the four years, and you have an economy now that makes you very vulnerable and it is going to be have a huge impact on your ability to manage

your nation's sealth in the future. So I think there's not much doubt that it was probably a mistake, even in New Zealand where there appeared to be as an island you could keep everyone out and sort of pretended the world didn't exist. But did I mention does? And you've wracked up a lot of problems?

girls and boys. Et cetera. And they know that healthy boys and girls and infants have almost near zero risk of dying of COVID sort of less than one million, so that there is no logic to any of this except the potential for profit and the sort of around that the sort of people who put their reputations want to preserve them, et cetera. So there's no public health rational public health basis that you can really follow to justify this.

and the vaccinated group in Maderna. For Pisa, there were more deaths in the vaccinated group than the control group, so it was no effect or negative at six months. In adults, we don't have good data on any other

age group. So for each new booster sort of type in in the US where they changed to a new variant, they test on I think is eight rats and they see if those rats produce antibodies, and they take that as the vaccine works, so that they don't even have human trials on the new versions now, so we have a passive and very flawed adverse reporting system of AIRS in the US and Australian New Zealand so on have

their own. They show more high mortality and all severe effects reported for associated with the MRA with COVID injections then for all other vaccinations combined in the thirty years that FAIRS and the US has been running. So that's obviously a huge red flag normally, so to go and give that sort of thing to infants who like health infants don't die of COVID, you're almost never. But we know, we don't know what if you take, for instance, the

accumulation of the ovaries. We know, and we knew before they started injecting anyone that the liber nanoparticles accumulates in the ovaries in rats. They've never looked at it in humans where we assumans are same. A girl was born with a certain number of over so that that determines the length of their fertility period when they're an adult. So the way the M marina vaccines work, they their marinae goes into a cell and it last quite a long time because it's not normal m RNA. It's modified.

One of their bases is modified to make it last much longer. So the story about it. M marinae lasts only a few days in the cell. It's true. But this isn't that sort of m RNA. It's a modified The US bas is modified and makes it. They did that to make it stay in the cell much longer and produce much more protein.

death in the ovaries. If it's in the liver, the same et cetera. That's how it works. So it's not an unreasonable assumption that you will lose some over during that period and you'll have a shorter fertility period as an adult. We don't know that, but it's not an unreasonable assumption. We will find out in twenty or thirty years time when the little girls who have been just been vaccinated now go into menopause and will see how

long they had the fertility period. Yet they're still being injected in this situation, and although they are not initiate purpose of COVID, they've all got Everyone by now has had COVID and has a pretty good immunity. And the CDC did studies that compared directly, you know, did you go into hospital, did you die just after post infection immunity?

And you know when you get another infection, or if you have vaccinate and you get an infection and there's you're slightly better off with natural immunity than the vaccine, and the vaccine on top of the natural immunity makes almost no discernible difference. So we have all the data that says if you've had an infection, you're highly unlikely to get severely or and the vaccine won't help significantly at all. This is a situation with everyone now. So

this is CDC data. It's published. The data on the biodistribution going to the ovaries, et cetera is published by fires Biointech and with the regulatory agencies when they have proved the vaccines. Now they also had data from rats on an increase in feudal animalities, very significant increase compared

to the control group in that same experiment. Yet they recommended for pregnant women, so we've been through this period that is actually hard to grasp as a public health physician in terms of the recklessness with which this was imposed on particularly is very vulnerable groups. Pregnant women and young children are usually the very last ones to be injected with a new drug, and only after years of

experience and then very careful studies. So none of that happened normally with genetic therapeutic, which is what these are and what they were classified as by Madina. You have to do castinogenicity studies to see if it courses cancer. You have to do teriratogenicity studies, which is what they did. Being need to watch that in humans as well to see if they fall cause fetal animalities. You have to do that with a genetic therapeutic, which is what these are.

You don't have to do it with a vaccine. So when they change the name to vaccine, they did away with all the stuff that you have to do for this sort of class of pharmaceutical, and this is acknowledged in the TGA report from Australia, the Australian regulatory agency, the Therapeutic Goods Administration. They acknowledged this in the report that the name change means that they didn't need to do this.

And that's what we faced with COVID. That's what we knew were facing with COVID from the first quarter of twenty twenty and has published in an answered So that is what we're dealing with. That is what happened. I think that has got a lot to do with why we keep seeing this push and keep seeing this pushed, rather than people sitting back and saying, this is what we actually did, because it's a big thing to admit.

So you have to remember that in twenty nineteen, late twenty nineteen, about October November, WHO put out the pandem Influenza Recommendations, which essentially say, don't do this under no circumstances, closed borders, do this sort of mass tests and trace

et cetera. So or you know, the big features of COVID, and they point out that if you put people out of work for seven to ten days, you're likely to start seeing overall negative outcomes, particularly in low income people, because of the harm to of the economy and their income, etcetera.

So UNISEF also, you know, they put out at the end of or in early twenty twenty one, estimates that were almost a quarter of a million dead children just from lockdowns in South Asia, so India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, et cetera. Six countries, almost a quarter million children. They are almost no children are dying from COVID that the World Bank put out estimates in low income countries, for every person that was saved by lockdowns, probably about two people died.

One point sevent to two people died. It's the World Bank, which is the same organization pushing the whole thing. So these organizations are not that. They're large organizations and they have some people in them who are trying to work against the tide and actually get sensible data out You me, and sorry, no, I was just going to say, I mean, it's not made up. These are say ten million girls.

That's because if you close schools and you impoverished families, particularly in South Asia, Subsaharan Africa and South America, then we know that a lot of girls will come out of school and they will be married off for various reasons including the family doesn't feel that they can afford to keep them anymore. And so this is what happens.

This is well recognized. You know, there are organizations like as a Child Not Bride pre COVID that were quite prominent in trying to reduce child marriage and noting that poverty is a big driver and keeping kids in school is a big way of stopping it. We heard nothing from them, so these figures aren't And this is where I say, you know, this wasn't unexpected. It was known that this sort of response would have these sorts of outcomes,

so it was intentional. Then the response was intentional, and they knew that it would have this collateral damage, and they knew that the disease they were doing it for, so in Sub Saharan Africa would kill very very few people because half the population there is under twenty, essentially children, and only about less than one percent of populations over seventy five, which is the high risk of COVID. Yeah, so it was intentional to do these lockdowns.

bad is necessary or good. And you know, unfortunately we have to do this because and you can pretend that the virus is an existential threat, and it's pretty easy to do that because you sort of get on board with your colleagues and you see each other up and here we are saving the words from a deadly virus as we kept hearing, you know, twenty four to seven

and all that stuff. So you just you can get yourself into this mindset, particularly in groups, where you can then convince yourself as a group that you know, oh gee, there's going to be some damage, but you're saving the world. And if you stop, then you sit on a mountain and you stop and you think carefully through it, you realize that this is rubbish. But as long as you stay in the group and you keep seeing each other along, then I think you can sort of do this. And

so you know, it's how crowds work. And well, I'm not trying to go down. I'm not trying to go down a conspiracy path. But considering that there are people involved at the very top of the money making tree that this is who believe that the world is overpopulated, but they have contributed greatly to this scenario. The negative side of it, is there any natural conclusion or possible natural conclusion we can come to over that or you

could draw that. But if if you're trying to kill people, I think there's better ways of doing it if if you're you know, another effect of this is that there's a big production in reproductive health, so that there there's an increase in birth rate in Sub Saharan Africa as well. So this isn't going to reduce the world's population overall.

Is probably going to increase it because poverty tends to lead to more children born as a sort of insurance policy, and so only because you can't access contraception, et cetera. So I don't think this will reduce the world's population. I think it will make it much much poorer. But hold, I mean there is a conspiracy. Of course, there's conspiracy is some people getting together and making a plan and not telling other people about it. That's what a conspiracy is.

And that's that's how you do business. If you're running a company, if you're running Pisa or something, and you in maternity, you come up with a few other companies of a way of making selling a lot of stuff, which is your job as CEO, and making a lot of money out of it for your investors and shareholders. You're not going to go and tell everyone, Okay, we're going to do this because we want to make lots

of money. We want to make hundreds of billions of dollars from selling a vacci You say we're saving the world. So of course there's a conspiracy in that there is people trying to make lots of money out of global health and they're not telling everyone exactly what. They're not putting it in those words. They're not telling everyone they're there to make money. And for the shareholders, they're telling everyone they're trying to save us. So but they are

trying to make money. That's a job. So it's a conspiracy because they're running a business. That's say, you run a business, you have plans that you don't fully divulge to others, to the world. So I think you can explain this as a huge sort of business case that was completely devoid of morals and any breaks on conflict of interest, et cetera, and was facilitated by these large agencies that have become dependent on these same private entities.

So of course there are people who people among these who want to have less people in the world, And in a way I can sort of understand that. Wouldn't it be nice to go to the beaches not crowded, wouldn't be nice not to have traffic jams every time you go to work. Great, you know, more green fields, et cetera. So that's a nice thing. But it's also nice to have humans. And here we are, we got

eight billion humans, and humans are great. So you know, people can say to you they'd like to have less people in the world, and that's not a bad thing in itself to say, as long as they're not saying and therefore we want to kill lots of other people to get there. And I think if you wanted to do that, you would have a better virus than SARS kobe to and you would probably go further along the path of toxic responses to it. So I don't think

that that was the primary driver at all. I think it was more making a lot of money, and there are some other things in the background. There is a push for things like central bank digital currency, which is not I mean, it's not a conspiracy there the central banks and someone say they want this. A Bank of Indudicial Settlements says it wants this CARST and has talked

about it their head. To do that, you need people ideally to be poorer and to be more dependent on government and to have you know, digital ideas and digital transactions that you can then use.

why would it go away? And COVID was and this whole pandemic agenda is a huge opportunity to do that because it provides the fear that you need to make people do things that they wouldn't normally do. So in the nineteen eighties in Australia, they tried to bring in a digital National Idea just National Idea card, and there was a huge outcry and it's just killed the whole idea.

They're doing it now and no unblinks because they've managed to get people's mindset to think that the government is saving them from existential crises, whether it's it's pandemics, or it's a climate crisis, or its terrorism whatever. And they need to allow the government to know who where they are and where they're spending their money and what they're doing all the time so that they can be kept

safe from all these things. And I think that is somewhat deliberate, or is quite deliberate, because people want to do that in order to have control over others and even further concentrate wealth, etc. And it's a sort of feudalism. That's the normal way that human society works, unless you constantly fight against it. Well, it can only for him. This is what they talk about essentially with their Great Reset, is essentially stakeholder capitalism, is essentially feudalism.

but we don't need CBDC. There's a great short video out probably not on YouTube but on other channels. So it's the Minneapolis Fed Federal Reserve chairman talking about this, saying like, why on earth would Americans want this? We manage perfectly fine with their finances. Now, why do you want the government to be able to control everything you do? It makes no sense from a public viewpoint is we don't. It's not saving us from anything. It's just imposing more

more control over us. So why would anyone?

a number of reasons. But like many people, I thought Trump was terrible the first time he was elected because I listened to the media, and the media had nothing good whatsoever to say about this person. If you spend the time and you listen to one two three hour long long form interviews with him, then you get a

very different picture of who this person is. And you know, I don't know why the media is so against him, but if there's someone like that, is that important you should sit down and actually make up your own minds and not have your mind made up by someone else.

We're so used to people just having Telly prompters and so on, or saying what their focus group told him to say, so sometimes he says things in a way that you sort of think, oh, no, why do you say that way, because people take it the wrong way. But if you put it in the context of a half hour hour long interview, then it starts to make sense.

And I think a lot of people saw this because people, and probably much more than news in but the US populace has turned massively away from mainstream media, and so that people listen to podcasts. I will listen to the podcast with Joe Rogan or with Tucker Carlson or something, and they'll hear a Trump or a put In or

Kamala Harris. If you'll do it, or et cetera, talk for a long time, and you can start to get an idea of what they're really thinking, whereas you can't do that by a journalist who is and there's about ninety seven percent of US journalists are on one side

of politics and three percent on the other. When they pull them and journalists openly say now that their job is advocacy, not reporting the news, so that they see their job as trying to turn the country into what they consider as a better place, so they propagandas so, most of what we get now on mainstream media in the US is propaganda and not news. And I think people have which is a refreshing part of this. People have realized that on a very large scale.

the media has just lost credibility. But you know, you had one side that spent only a third of the money, but who had very long speeches and very long interviews and articulated a wide policy alternatives, they said what they're planning to do. You had another side. If there are clear policies I missing, and I think people are struggling to the people struggle to figure out what the actual policy is apart from trying to keep Trump out. But that's not a policy that you're going to went on.

So yeah, they didn't articulate any policy, and they teleproms are broke down so so and that they clearly did not tell the truth to the American public about the state of the previous president and et cetera. So you know, I can't see how journalists struggle with that. The left of politicies and what the left used to be. But if if you're a sort of pro Democrat or pro republic whatever, it's hard to argue I think with what I just said, because that's blatantly in front of everyone.

going to make health generally worse in the future. I mean that's pretty obvious. So and that is why that's what the Great Barons in Declace is about, is just you will cause more harm if you close down the health system, closed down the economy for something like this, rather than just concentrating on the people who are actually at risk and addressing their needs.

long and then just went backwards so many steps. So I think in the future it'll be recognized as a huge mistake. I doubt that it will directly impact any of these people. I don't think anyone political is going to go to jail or something for this, and I'm not sure that. I mean, some of them are actually extreme, and the one you're talking about is recognized as fairly extreme globally. But politicians were in a really difficult situation with this, and I think we have to recognize this

put yourself in their shoes. The whole media was against it, and the media was on the side of big farm totally, along with hundreds of billions of dollars of effort. And if those Jordan said, as Prince of Sweden did they weren't going to do this. Every death is pinned on them, so it was likely political suicide. Having said that, I didn't see any leaders sit down in front of the nation for a couple of hours and just talk through like these are the facts. This is the age people dying,

and this is the comorbidities. If we close down, we're not going to help all these other people, and we're going to do this huge economic harm and that's going to mean longer waiting lists and less money for cancer treatment, less money for heart disease, less money for kids' illnesses, etc. In the future. So what are you doing. If we had that conversation and there was a politician anywhere brave enough to do that, I suspect that a lot of

populations would have sided with them. But that aside. You know, I think they were just trying to avoid being classed in the media and by a lot of the population who were just brainwashed as murderers. I mean, maybe I'm being over nice. I don't know, but I think that sort of explains why so many went along with it and very few politicians stood up.

into politics or medicine whatever. So they go through, they come out of high school, they go into university, they joined student politics, they joined whatever party in that politics in the university, and that's their career for life is just being a politician. And really that's the last person who you would want to run your country. You know, you've just you've no idea. You've just reminded me of something.

There was there was an article, there was a commentary piece written by a university professor here with regard to Jacinda going and giving advice to Karmala. Right, No, this is this is true, not fiction, not fiction. Apparently it's true. There's a picture of the two of them together, and et cetera. It's just occurred to me. We know that you, Sinda worked in a fish and chip shop. Apparently Carmela didn't work in McDonald's or no one can, no one can prove it. They're stroking to find a record.

being paid. But they can see that people have not really you know, it comes back to actually articulating policies and explaining why you're there versus just being there and jumping up and down and saying never Trump one side ran this very shallow campaign because we think how journalists can't recognize that is really interesting because it means that they are really they've lost the ability to think rationally to a large extent.

in order to achieve health independence. This is what sustainability and equity means, words of which global health profiteers are so fond. These changes need to be sect a wide, not just the who so what you're saying is that the who certainly needs to be changed dramatically, but so does the whole sector.

And this is the standard left or right wing, but certainly left wing thinking around public health two decades ago. You don't want a colonialist situation where you have people from rich countries having all the expertise and going and telling people in poor countries what to do. You want to build our world based much more equally, where all countries have adequate capacity and can manage their own health

in the way that they see fit. And that is what we are supposed to be building in international public health, or we were. Is the opposite of having very strong central institutions that have the ability to dictate policy about whether it's vaccination or lockdowns or whatever. And it's the opposite of growing these central institutions, they should be getting smaller and smaller as countries get on their own feet

and do things themselves. And I don't think people can really argue with that from any point of view, except if you really are on the train that believes that the world is facically increasing existential threats and we're all going to die if we don't all give up our rights to some central bureaucuct to save us. And if you're on that train still, then it is properly hard

to get you off it. There's no rational basis for believing that we are generally living longer and pandemics, outbreaks, infectious cities outbreaks are getting less deadly overall and are not getting more frequent. We're getting better at detecting them, but they're not killing more people. So it's illogical to believe that. It doesn't fit historically, it doesn't fit epidemiologically. If people custominds back to twenty nineteen, it doesn't fit

properly with their experience at all. So people need to sort of undo the propaganda a bit and go back to that mountain to think on their own and think through what is actually going on and that they will realize that there is no good reason to keep growing these bureaucracies. That poverty was going down before COVID, etc. Countries were doing better, the most African countries had rapidly increasing GDPs or that was reversed during COVID. The world

was getting much better. We've had this huge step backwards. But you could argue that is because these institutions need for surviving growth is such that they are now really poisoning the world and poisoning the countries that they were supposedly supporting.

class and in economy plus. And I just thought earlier on when you were talking about the travel business class travel for these people who who fly around between Nairobi and Geneva and what have you, that this was even more incentive for them to maintain their positions and grow the company.

one that covers all of them. So if you've heard this before, you can turn it off because you've heard it, because it's going to be the same one for each of the seven replays. Now, if this is the first one, then I trust that you're having a wonderful holiday. If you're not on holiday yet, your time will come. Rest assured.

I have enjoyed doing these because re listening to them myself, I get more out of them and I see things, or I should say, I hear things that I might have got slightly wrong or I could have done better, So it's a learning curve as well. Anyway, we will be back for the next one a week from this particular release, unless, of course it's the last one, which is on the twenty ninth of January, and that'll be the end of this replay series. Add on February five,

we shall return with fresh content in the meantime. At any stage us drop us on notes if you've got comment that you'd like to make later at news talks AB dot co dot enzend and Caroline at newstalksb dot co dot nz and we shall talk soon.