Leighton Smith Podcast #265 - November 13th 2024 - David Bell

and expect all aspects of administration to be perfect. There's always something capable of dispensing unexpected issues, such as the World Health Organization. Here are two headlines Shane Jones World Health Organization needs reform, not fattening zecond aheader New Zealand First, fears over who regulations are misplaced, Robust checks and balances already exist and here is a giveaway that is halfway down the page. You can trust this article because it's

written by academics, really, but you get the picture. Looks all sounds like the ultimate pulpits of truth. Now in the interview to follow with doctor David Bell, who has been on the podcast on a few occasions now, and if you wonder why, the answer is because I appreciate his opinions. Discussion covers what I've already mentioned and a whole lot more. I think the best way I can describe it is it is and will be enlightening. Now brief to another matter. I quote you Neil ferguson the historian.

Trump's victory is a blow to political lawfare, critical race theory, woke campuses, legacy media, and Hollywood. It's also a win for a new generation of builders like Elon Musk. Now, after the mail room, we shall indulge in a little more on Trump's triumph last week, but in a moment David.

antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality. So next time you're in need of an effective antihistamine, call into the pharmacy and ask for Leverix l e v Rix Leverix and always read the label. Takes 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 Innovative New Diagnostics in Geneva, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good 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 once, 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 interesting, 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?

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 in severe poverty through 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 derbted 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've and others have been saying for quite a while. I was going to is a massive organization, is a huge bureaucracy, It's grossly out of touch with reality, and it is deliberately misleading countries.

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 and large don't dig into things like that anymore. They just assume if the World Bank or the 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 change journes it makes sense that the WHO is it is a huge It's not just a WHO, but the whole intershal health bureaucracy is tens of thousands of people.

So that's the op they shouldn't be growing. You know, there was a who 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 be happening is us countries should be getting on their feet, so we shouldn't need the WHO anymore in anything like you know, 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're seventy or eighty years into WHO and they are seeing the 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.

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

district guard 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, you 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. 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 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 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 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 struct an

organization to do that. It's probably something where people can only say 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 it 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 in 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 it money. And that happens because you keep thinking more money will be good, and you're you know you're capable of handing the conflict of interest bit and you won't be corrupted a 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 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, and it should be a temporary tool until the country stand on their own feet. Has become a fol of the pharmaceutical industry and biotech and those who invest in it. Yeah, so I think you know, Shane Jones is arriets. It

is not contributing. Now, there's no reason for it to grow because actually infectious disease mortality has been steadily declining to spital 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 remdeser beere and very early

intubation early on in the pandemic, so people panicked. They did that. That happened because there was a huge media operation to make people panic. And 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 our breaks astray, the mass cholera immortality, 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 WHA to be growing at all. It should be shrinking.

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

There are still significant rheumatic heart disease and other infection based mortality in all populations, in 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 would 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 initial debt which would encouraging the COVID response like many countries, so that makes you much more vulnerable to that. So that's 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.

them to get paid in 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 al right wing conspiracy theorists and they're likely to be vilified.

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

reputation got really famous in the media, et cetera. 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 or cause mortality compared to other countries that

didn't act in that way. So you're better off over the four years, and you have an economy now that makes you very vulnerable and is going to have a huge impact on your ability to manage your nation's health 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? And you 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.

the vaccinator group in Maderna. For Pisa there were more deaths in the vaccinator 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 tested on I think as eight rats and they see if those rats produce antibodies, and they take that as the vaccine works, so 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 using and so on have their own.

They show more high mortality and all severe effects reported for associated with the MRI with COVID injections then for all other vaccinations combined in the thirty years that FAIRS in 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 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 lipananoparticles accumulates in the ovaries in in rats. It looked at in humans where the humans 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, their marinae goes into a cell and it lasts 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 mRNA 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 of 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 any silyperous of COVID, they've all got everyone by now has take 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 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 phiz and Biointech and was with the regulatory agencies when they have proved the vaccines. Now they also had data from rats on an increase in fetal animality. It's very significant increase compared to the control group in that

same experiment. Yet they recommend it for pregnant women. So we've been through this period that is actually hard to grasp as a public health physician in terms of, you know, 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 Bymadena. You have to do carstinogenicity studies to see if it courses cancer. You have to do terratogenicity studies, which is what they did in the rats, but you need to watch that in humans as well to see 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 TTA report from Australia, the Australian regulatory agency of the Therapeutic Goods Administration. They acknowledged this in the report that the name change means that they didn't need to

do this. So you can imagine if you had an existential threat from sort of airborne a bowler which is never going to happen, never happened in human history, et cetera. But it's in the movies that you might take these sorts of risks. But it makes no sense for a virus that is associated with death on average in Europe at the age of about eighty to eighty three, and those people are the sick ones at that age, not the well ones. 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 is published in Land. 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.

on the likely harms of this intervention. So you have to remember that in twenty nineteen, late twenty nineteen, about October November, WHO put out their pandemic 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 the harm to 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 million dead children just from lockdowns in South Asia, so India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, et cetera.

Six countries, almost a quarter million children. There 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 seven 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. And sorry, no, I was just going to say, I mean, it's not made up. These are some say ten million girls. That's because if you close schools and you're impoverished families, particularly in South Asia, subs are in 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 There's a Child Not Bride that pre COVID that were quite prominent in trying to reduce child marriage and noting that poverty and 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. They're essentially children, and only about one less than one percent of populations over seventy five, which is the high risk of COVID. So yeah, so it was intentional to do these lockdowns.

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 there's going to be some damage, but you're saving the world. And if you stop and 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 so 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 is. Any 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 come up with a few other companies 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

silling 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, 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 facility hated 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 want to do that, you would have a better virus than salas Kobe two, 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, there's not a conspiracy there the central banks and someone say they want this. A bank of interudicial sentiments says it

wants this cast and has talked about 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 to sort of control their lives their lives and oh, you know, that's that's what they say. They want central bank digital currency for it will allow you to control how much people travel, how what they eat, where they go,

who they meet. So I think there are a lot of people who don't just want money, they want this sort of fascist eight globally. And that's always been the case in human existence, is 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 one blinks 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 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. The word you can wait for him. This is what they talk about essentially with their great reset is essentially a stakeholder capitalism is essentially feudalism.

for people, 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 where their finances. Now, why do you want the government to be to control everything you do? It makes no sense from a public viewpoint. 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. What's over 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.

somewhat refreshing. We're so used to people just having teleprompters and so on, or saying what their focus group told them 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 putt In or Kamala Harris, if you'll do it or etc. 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 you know, 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 the 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 variety of policy alternatives. They said, what they're planning to do? You had another side. If there are clear policies, I miss them, 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 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 polities 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.

you massively impoverish people and close down economy. Then that's 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 Barents and 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.

And there is this huge impact on basic human rights and so on that the world been fighting for for so 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 who 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 they stood and 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, 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, and less money for heart disease, less money for kids' illnesses, et cetera 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 politicians stood up.

before they go 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.

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. Guess you know 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.

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. Is that possible? Yes, it's possible.

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. It 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 facally increasing existential threats and we're all going to die if we don't all give up our rights to some central bureauct to save us. And if you're on that train still, then it is properly hard to get you off it.

But there's no rational basis for believing that we are generally living longer, and pandemics outbreaks, infectious his 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 crust them minds 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, sort of 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 of 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.

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

been thrown against him is truly inspirational. If only we had a leader like Trump willing to follow through with the courage of their convictions and stand up against the idiotic policies and the woke agenda. It's going to be fascinating four years, and I suspect the Democrats will be much like the Labor Party and refuse to accept the fact that they've lost touch with the aspirations and concerns of the common people who make up the vast majority

of the electorate. I saw a snippet of that great champion or formerly of the working class, Bruce Springsteen, performing a few songs at a Carmela rally. Thought how ironic it was that he he was singing for the Democrats while the actual working class people he made his fortunes singing about. We're now firmly supporting the Republicans in every increasing numbers, and I think will no doubt continue to do so as long as the Democrats are captured by

their radical left policies. I'm sure the irony of this would not be lost on him. In a moment of quiet reflection, kind regards and keep up the good work.

grown up thumb sucking and juvenile tongue poking. This includes their personality attacks and character assassinations upon Republican politicians. New Zealand also has an international reputation and international trade links to consider. Mainstream media should engage in big picture thinking

and perhaps reflect on their myopia and potential mass formation psychosis. Fortunately, these days, the public has now choices and independent media, independent symposians, and independent podcasts present as a viable alternative. After all, variety is the spice of life. I think that we should we should invite suggestions as to who are the most myopic of the media and journalists at this point of time.

anti Trump is clearly in the minority. I'm keen to see how the mainstream media adapts, if it's willing to the new landscape that lays before them, and whether people will finally c through the bs we've been fed since at least twenty sixteen. The choices in the hands of the media as to what they do, particularly if they want to remain relevant. Much like the demise of the Saint Cindy government here, it's going to be refreshing to wake up each day not worried about the US idiots

and power and what they're planning to do. Thanks again for your amazing podcasts, and that's from Vincent instance appreciated.

The data I was seeing on the Swing States indicated to me that they would go to Trump, with maybe one or two exceptions. As far as I was concerned, the mainstream media was engaging in hope. America rejected woke yesterday, America rejected not only the Democratic Party, but how it was run and the insane policies they promoted. For me, they didn't understand the wider public, only pandering to their academic elites who look down on the working class, the unwashed,

who used to be their base. America rejected them with the popular vote, which will sting the Democrat Party, the very party that lied and hid Biden's decline with the complicity of the majority of the mainstream media. The media have lost their way and as we all know, have moved from reporting to agenda setting. It was salient to note Julle Biden dressed in red on election day. People

in those circles sent messages with their attire. Quite why we down under were able to spot this wind from a mile away speaks on how out of touch the Democratic Party are. They will need to see an optician as they will spend the number of years naval gazing after this pearl esque defeat from Bryce. In Brittany Land.

and I both booked in Trump by a landslide. Trudeau is next to feel the voter's wrath. Looking forward to this week's podcast, and that's from Steve.

change in their top five issues affecting the country. It comes as no surprise that economic and social issues are currently front of mind for most of us, as these are the issues that we face in our daily lives. Ever, believes that ongoing droughts, floods, fires, and sea level rise will bring devastation and calamity to our future generations. This raises another issue. A recent study has indicated that our kids are suffering increasingly from anxiety. Further, around fifty percent

stated that climate change was the main cause of their torment. Perhaps, perhaps, just maybe it's time for us to temper inflammatory language around climate change. Don't rely on it, don't hold your breast, George Laton.

fear and loathing of President Trump. As you'll understand, that makes those people far beyond the pale in regard to the obnoxiousness of their opinions and views in comparison to the lovely Candice Owens, would you please ensure that such dangerous US citizens are disallowed entry to our beautiful country where President Trump is respected and honored.

Come to that conclusion. And by the way, there appears to be some evidence of a verbal kind, at least, that he is not alien to the thought of there actually being a God. Anyway he was combating. I saw him do it at another speech, that he believed that God had him turn his head. Now a lot of you will laugh at that or mock it. No, none of you will knock it, but you might be amused by it.

just wow. The twenty twenty four US election proves that God proves that God exists, the editorial of Spectator Australia proclaimed, following the first of the two assassination attempts, in which mister Trump turned his head at the split second the bullet was fired, this magazine, at its cover was unequivocal suggesting the hand of God may well have been at work and that mister Trump had more work yet to do.

Looks like we may have been right. Americans had a choice to either usher in a new government represented by self aware, hard working men like Elon Musk, Joe Rogan, and Daniah Dana White, or continue to be lectured by self righteous, filthy rich women like Oprah Winfrey, Michelle Obama, and Beyonce. Trump and Harris represented those two completely opposing worlds. Trump represented the people, Harris represented Hollywood, and in this election,

the people hated Hollywood. This election proved that minorities actually want the same thing as the majority of Americans. They want men to be men and women to be women. They want their country's borders to be protected, they want the cost of living to be affordable, they want justice to be done, they want Hollywood to shut the hell up, and they want a president who can relate to them.

And as Patrick Basham said in your podcast, Trump has the uncannyability to reach out to normal people, and after the insanity of the Biden Harris administration, normality is exactly what Trump's administration will deliver. Once again. Spectator Australia rightfully proclaims the triumph of Donald Trump is indeed a win, win win, a win for America, a win for democracy and a win for traditional Western values over the insidious socialist,

communist Marxist ideology of wokeness. Close quote, Americans have dodged a bullet alongside Trump thanked the Lord Almighty for his mercy upon us in twenty twenty four. You go bet there's a lot of people that think along those lines. Well, thank you for your inputness, producer. Can can I see you next week later?

campaign trail. A New York Times headline bewailed his election victory on Wednesday morning, America hires a strong man, so anyone who cast about it became the moral equivalent of a mafia don hiring a hitman. With a question mark. The Times news analysts lamented this was a conquering of the nation, not by force, but with a permission slip. Now America stands on the precipice of an authoritarian style of governance never before seen in its two hundred and

forty eight year history. Now, when I was pre reading this, I thought I'm going to have something to say here because it's fairly obvious. And then I read the next paragraph and I thought, well, I can't better it. So this is what Jim said, well, at least never before seen by journalists whose knowledge of history doesn't extend back

beyond Taylor Swift's first best selling album. The notion that Trump was a unique threats in American history entitled the media to ignore all the civil liberties abuses of the Biden Harris administration. Coincidentally, that spared many reporters and editorial writers the difficulty of comprehending the policies which they tacitly endorsed. The media betrayed freedom of speech, at least for Americaans

who don't have a journalism degree. Biden administration officials conducted potentially quote the most massive attack against free speech in

United States history close quote. A federal judge concluded, and a federal appeals court condemned Team Biden for suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens, mostly by Conservatives and Republicans, But most of the media was the Sherlock Holmes dog that didn't bark when federal agencies browbeat social media companies with endless demands to muzzle and blindfold

average Americans. Vice presidential candidate j D. Vance raised the censorship issue during his debate with Governor Tim Waltz, but it got little or no traction beyond his speels. Instead, censorship was championed by the media in recent years as part of a holy crusade against misinformation, that is, facts

that are damned inconvenient for the ruling class. Did progressives discover a hidden asterisk to the First Amendment that another fies constitutional rights for anyone who jokes about COVID vaccine mandates? Because it was a self evident truth that Orange Man bad, most reporters and pundits exerted little or no effort to

comprehend or expose Biden administration follies and frauds. Almost all the media campaign coverage ignored the risk of World War III thanks to the Biden Harris escalation of the Ukraine Russia War. Why was there no controversy about Biden providing F sixteen jets to Ukraine, potentially enabling Ukraine to attack

practically anywhere in Russia with US bombs? Or did the media believe that they had a moral authority to blindly support Ukraine because its president, unlike Putin, supports transgender rights that rule do us about the third of the weights stream, Maybe half the way through. But it's very good James Beauvard, if you want to track it down now. In short, these are dangerous times from James Howard Kunstler. People in the media are aware of how illegitimately they've done their jobs,

that they think they're on the verge of being locked up. Now, that was a quote from Scott Adams that he's employed. You must admit it's a little spooky how quickly and rigorously mister Trump intends to deconstruct those parts of the government at war with the people. Clean out rogue bureaucrats, fire hose the malignant agencies, release and expose their document trails on spying, censorship, law fare, and abuse of power. The consequence would be the return of consequence in our

national life. I had to read that twice to grasp. But the consequence would be the return of consequence in our national life. It's been absent for so long you can hardly imagine its power to get people's minds right. There are already reports of frenzy among the culpable Department of Justice lawyers, and FBI Director Ray is set to resign before Trump can fire him. Attorney General Merrick Garland has gone radio silent for his own good since election day.

Expect many abiding mysteries to get unraveled, such as exactly how many federal agents did work the crowd around the Capitol on j six twenty one, which mister Ray has pretended to not be able to discuss due to ongoing investigations. Expect to learn more about the pipe bomb caper at the DNCHQ a few blocks away the same day. Prepare to be amazed at how deeply criminal these schemes were.

You must wonder if the document treading party is already underway, despite calls to preserve all the emails, memos and texts. Then there are the poisoned realms of the intel blob located at CIA, A, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, Department of Defense, and elsewhere being subject to inquiry and overhaul.

Think John Brennan, James Clapper, Bill Maher, Michael Atkinson, Mayorcus Judge Boseburg, Mary McCord, Colonel Vindman, Senator Warner, Avril Haynes, Victoria Newland, Samantha Power, Gina Haspell, Marie Yovanovich, Jen Easterly, all their deputies, all their deputies, and many more unknown to the public. Some of these names may yet seem obscure to you. They were all necked deep in what looks a lot like sedition, treason, real conspiracies, not theories.

Even state officials such as New York Attorney General Lea Tisha James, Manhattan DA Elvin Bragg, and Fulton County GA DA Panny Willis would be subject to federal charges under eighteen USC. Section two four to two, which states willful deprovision of constitutional rights acting under color of law. That is exactly what the Trump law fare cases amounted to. Then, of course, there are the long running rumors of pedophilia and human trafficking networks among the elite, the Jeffrey Epstein

list and the p. Diddy list. If these things exist and they are released, history would shudder. Then goes on and give some examples, but that will do us. There is lots of good writing, lots of exposure, and there are not going to be easy times for quite a lot of people, and for anybody who just might be of a different school of thought and think this is the authoritarian they're talking about that he's going to turn into.

He is going to be a dictator. The answer is no. This is or would be simply pursuing justice and that will take us out for podcast two hundred and sixty five. If you would like to correspond, please do latent at newstalksb dot co dot nz or Carolyn C. A. L. Y N Carolyn at NEWSTALKSB dot co dot nz. We shall return with podcasts number two hundred and sixty six very shortly in the meantime. As always, thank you for listening and we'll talk soon.