You're listening to a podcast from news talks it B. Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio. It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all the information, all the debates of the now, the Leyton Smith Podcast powered by news talks it B.
Welcome to podcasts two eighty four for May fourteen, twenty twenty five. Deceits, corruption, blackmail, threats, cowardice, dismissal, just a few words to indicate how the world works. One such example concerns doctor Pierre Corey, who was in the thick of it for four years or longer, but still not entirely free of it. I quote you a few lines from his book The War on iver Mecdon. I soon discovered that the corruption and deceit was hardly limited to
the pharmaceutical space. The entire medical industrial complex, including our governmental and international regulatory agencies, big farmer, public and private healthcare systems and hospital networks, medical schools and their journals had been collectively captured. Now to say that per Cory is a generous man is an understatement. He is very generous with his time. His attitude to just about everything
is positive and giving. Is a very good speaker, and we shall talk with him soon, but just to exemplify the fact that he is not on his own with what he has been through, and I'm sure most people listening will be familiar with it in some way, but to show that there are others who are involved in trying to improve the world, I suppose let me refer
to Mary and Demasi, an Australian science writer. She was with ABC Radio and Sydney or maybe television or maybe both, but she was for a considerable period of time, but she went independent and I've referenced to her be for she doesn't do interviews because she doesn't want to who she wants to retain her independence. I think is the way that she put it to me. Anyway, Merk rigged Gardasil trials to conceal Harm's court documents reveal and this
was published by her just a few days ago. In what would become one of the most explosive pharmaceutical lawsuits in US history, Roby versus Merk, centered on the Gardasil HPV vaccine and is set to resume in Los Angeles in September of this year. At the core of the case are allegations that Merk misrepresented the safety profile of Gardasil,
allegations now supported by powerful evidence. A newly unsealed expert report from Danish physician and world renowned research methodologist doctor Peter C. Gooshki, Well that's my interpretation, submitted as part of the pre trial motion, underpins the claims against Merk. His three hundred and fifty page forensic analysis, now part of the official court record, lays bare a chilling narrative
of clinical trial rigging, regulatory failure, and global deception. According to Weergotski, Merk distorted its clinical trial data so thoroughly that the results were rendered scientifically meaningless. Gotshki's assessment is stark and unequivocal. The Mirk sponsored trials cannot be used to properly assess the harms of the vaccines, he writes, adding that the company squandered the opportunity to legitimately study
the safety of Gardasil. After examining one hundred and twelve thousand pages of regulatory documents, Gotshki concluded that Mirk manipulated its data to such an extent that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for any independent scientist or even government regulators to accurately assess the vaccines harm. It now raises the fundamental question, were millions of adolescents misled into consenting to a vaccine whose true safety risks were deliberately obscured.
Now there is more to the article, but it's not the point of today's podcast. But that's just one example. Here's a second, The Crisis of Unreliable Science, a pharmacologist call for radical reform. Each year, biomedical scientists pump out about a million new papers, but a troubling truth hides in plain sight. Much of this work cannot be replicated. Far from a small glitch, this is a colossal crisis, squandering billions, eroding faith in science, and stalling genuine breakthroughs.
In an interview with Chemical and Engineering News, pharmacologist Zaba Zavo, a professor at the University of Freiburg, Switzerland, confronts this chaos head on previewing his recently published book Unreliable. His verdict the scientific system is fractured beyond repair, and band aid fixes won't cut it. Nothing short of a revolution will do. But there is more, and it goes back a little further, just to show that there's nothing really new about from the book Betrayers of Truth, which I
think is about fifty years old now or thereabouts. Fraud and de Seit in the Halls of Science by William Broad and Nicholas Wade, and chapter two is deceit in history. Through experimental science, we have been able to learn all these facts about the natural world, triumphing over darkness and ignorance, to classify the stars and to estimate their masses, composition distances, and velocities, to classify living species, and to unravel their
genetic relations. These great accomplishments of experimental science were achieved by men who had in common only a few things. They were honest and actually made the observations they recorded, and they published the results of their work in a form permitting others to duplicate the experiment or observation. So says the Berkeley Physics Course, an influential text that has been used across the United States to impress cottage students
with both the substance and tradition of modern physics. As with non scientific systems. As with non scientific systems of belief, however, the elements insisted on most strongly are often those with the least factual reliability. The great scientists of the past were not all so honest, and they did not always
obtain the experimental results they reported. Claudius Ptolemy, known as the greatest astronomer of antiquity, did most of his observing not at night on the coast of Egypt, but during the day in the great Library of Alexandria, where he appropriated the work of a Greek astronomer and proceeded to call it his own. There's more, but we'll finish with the last, and obviously the most recent. The American physicist Robert Millikan won the Nobel Prize for being the first
to measure the electric charge of an electron. But Millican extensively misrepresented his work in order to make his experimental results seem more convincing than was in fact the case. So there's some examples of the fact that we might be believing things that aren't true even in this day and age. In fact, I think it's fair to say even more in this day and age. However, that is not the case. I believe with doctor Pierre Cory. The problem with his issues lies with the opposition to what
he has produced. I believe that they're the ones with the problems and if anybody from the medical profession or the scientific world has different opinions that they feel strongly about that, I'd love to hear from you with full respect and hear what you have to say and where you disagree with what you're about to hear, I think that that would be a fine thing. Latent at Newstalks ADB dot co dot Nz we'll hear from doctor Corey in.
Just a moment.
Buccolan is a natural oral vaccine in a tablet form called Bacterial Nice Safe. It'll boost your natural protection against bacterial infections in your chest and throat. A three day course of seven Bucklan tablets will help your body build up to three months of immunity against bugs which cause bacterial cold symptoms. So who can take buccolan well, the whole family from two years of age and upwards. A course of Bucclan tablets offers cost effective and safe protection
from colds and chills. Protection becomes effective a few days after you take buccolan and lasts for to three months following the three day course. Buccolan can be taken throughout the cold season, over winter, or all the year round. And remember buckelan is not intended as an alternative to influenza vaccination, but may be used along with the flu vaccination for added protection. And keep in mind that millions of doses have been taken by Kiwis for over fifty years.
Only available from your pharmacist. Always read the label and users directed, and see your doctor if systems persist. Farmer Broker, Auckland, Layton Smith. Ivermectin is a dirty word in the media. It doesn't work. It's a deadly horse steawormer, prescribed and promoted as you'll be called a right wing quack and be banned from social media or lose your license to
practice medicine. And yet entire countries wiped out the virus with it, and more than ninety five studies now show it to be unequivocally effective in preventing and treating COVID nineteen. Ask you isulved this question? If it didn't work, why was there a coordinated global campaign to cancel it? What is the truth about this decades old Nobel Prize winning medication. Now, the words I've just quoted are from the inside cover
of the book The War on Ivermectin. It was published in twenty twenty three, and it was sold all over the world. To say that it's worth reading is an understatement of major proportion. But I had trouble finding a copy, at least one that I could buy immediately. I only had a few days notice. Subtitled The Medicine that Saved millions and could have entered the pandemic, its author is as you'll discover a fascinating individual, doctor per Corey. It's a pleasure to finally get to talk with.
You, Leaton. My pleasure as well. Thanks for having me.
We're doing this between golf games.
I gather exactly I'm on vac but.
I wanted to make time for you. I think it's an important conversation.
Always, well, you certainly do your fair share of media, so so I want to start just with we'll jump around a little bit. I actually we'll jump around a lot. It's my podcast. But yeah, I want to start with a little experience that you had because this this intrigued me with a political legend, and this comes under the heating right at the right near the beginning of the book, where you are talking about old Pierre as opposed to New Pierre. But old Pierre was a fascinating character before
he changed. So who was old Pierre?
Oh boy? Yeah, So that was that was the opening of my book.
Well really described, you know, my kind of awakening in COVID and so compared to what I believed and what I thought were was the truth to what I came to believe. Uh, it created an all in a new Pier. So the old Pierre, as I describe it, the old Pierre read the New York Times and thought it was the arbiter of truth.
And if you really wanted to know.
What was going on, you read the New York Times and you would substitute whatever your main major daily newspaper is in New Zealand. But that's the quote unquote paper of record in the United States. I read that since I was six. I believed in the high impact medical journals. I thought only the best science and scientists published there. I believed in our healthcare public health agencies. I thought only the best science and scientists would form those opinions
and give that kind of guidance I trusted. I don't think I really questioned mainstream media. I kind of felt like they're just reporting on stories, and that's what was going on, and I was just very basically trusting in the institutions of society, and that was a world that I lived in, and I thought every thing was I don't want to say normal, but I just that was my frame of reference for the world I lived in.
And lady, you want to ask me what the new Pierre is.
Well, let's put it. Let's put it this way. The title of the book is The War on Either Migdon, and it just came to me as I was reading, and I thought a good subtitle would be The Education of Pierre Corey, Yes, because.
Because it really does describe a journey for sure.
So what about the new peer?
I mean, the new Pierre has come to learn that what the old Pierre believed is simply not true. And I hate going like dark or negative thoughts so quickly. I mean, the new Pierre has come to realize that the old Pierre's impressions and perceptions of the world were simply not based in fact.
They were based in perception.
And you know, I became very inspired and challenge by COVID, and from the get go, before even the hit us shores, me and my colleagues were.
Starting to study look at this.
You know, I was a pulmonary and critical care physician, you know, very high up in academia in the United States. I was the chief of the Critical care service as well as the director of the ICU at a major academic medical center here at the University of Wisconsin, huge research funded institution, and so I was in charge of our initial COVID response. And I was doing that while studying the disease that was again it was a pulmonary
and critical care disease that was coming at us. And that began, you know, three or four or five years now of deep study, talking to doctors, reading pre prints, you know, reading everything I could, and then also just keenly observing various therapies, how the variants were changing, how people became ill, because it wasn't you know, it's a similar disease, but the variants did change and things became more difficult than less difficult.
Does various change.
And so I've been immersed in the science of COVID and particularly the ivermactin, you know, so I became I would consider myself one of the clinical experts in the use of ivermactin in.
COVID, and so I knew the truth about ivermactin.
How did that end into your life?
Yeah, So what happened was is when I first bonded with my colleague Paul Marris, so he and I were good friends. We shared a lot of research into IVY vitamin C, so we'd been friendly and interacted, and he's a very prominent physician, so he was the most published practicing critical care medicine doctor in the history of our specialties,
very very famous, well known. He and I become friends because we did neutral research on a topic, and so people reached out to him because the governments were not coming up with treatment protocols.
They were just saying like stay.
Home until your lips turned blue when you got to the hospital. They didn't do anything but like oxygen and mentally and Thailand all orgacito minifin. I mean, it was absolutely outrageous that no one was trying to treat this disease. And there are all these arguments, there's no studies to show you how to treat it, so basically do nothing.
It was just brazenly absurd reasoning. And so we started to study various therapies and we came up with a hospital protocol and so some people, prominent people asked Paul to form a group to put out protocols. So we formed a nonprofit organization called the FLCCC Alliance, and we started to post protocols first in the hospital. We did not have an early treatment protocol for another six months.
But what Paul did was very clever.
We were following the data on various therapeutics you could use as now patient, and we'd had this chart and he would put like green, yellow, and red lights, you know, in terms of how much the evidence was showing support for various therapies, and iver mactin was always on that chart with a question mark because we'd heard some things that ivermectin may be effective, but we had no data,
we had no science, no trials. And it was really October of twenty twenty, probably what is six seven months into the pandemic, when all of a sudden, a series of studies from various places around the world started coming out showing this incredible efficacy of ivermactin. I granted they were small studies, but there's nothing wrong with a small study, because what a small study can't do is it can't detect small benefits. But when a small study detects large benefits,
you have a lot of difficulty explaining those ways. And so we were seeing these immense benefits come out from these studies, and Paul brought it to our attention in the group, and we put it into a protocol. We had an early treatment protocol. We added many other medicines, you know, subsequent to that. But that's really what happened. And when Paul, when those first few trials, Paul picked up on that signal, I said, I'm going to write a review paper on all of the emerging evidence of
IBA in COVID. And it was a really hard paper to write. For one reason, laden is that every time I was about to finish it and uploaded to a preprint server or submitted to a journal, another study would come out. And it seemed like every week there was a new study. And I always make the joke that I had a reference manager for my manuscripts, which didn't work very well. So I was manually reordering my references and.
Talked hours hours and hours and hours. But anyway, that's kind of the story.
And I put out that paper in November of twenty twenty, and then Senator Ron Johnson, who was like me. He was similarly, you know, very kind of disappointed as a mild word. I mean, he was irate that the government was doing nothing to provide guidance on treatment, and so he held these hearings. I testified for the first time actually in May of twenty twenty on the critical need for cortico steroids in the hospital phase of the disease.
And by the way, I did that at a time when every national and international healthcare organization around the world was recommending against cortico steroids. So I got into my first rodeo in COVID was cordico steroids because I got hammered for that.
Right, just steroids or what exactly they are.
There's a strong anti inflammatory ammino suppressants, so they suppressed inflammation. So the things like prednozone or hydro cortizone you might have heard of, or quarters and those are cordico steroids, and and everybody was saying don't use them, even though these patients were hyper inflaming. Then their lungs were actually failing from excessive inflammation.
So it was not really a stretch to know that it was important.
And we had a lot of scientific evidence from stars and mers, but yet everybody's recommending against it. And it was just bizarre because Paul and I are expert clinicians and we've been at the bedside trying to keep patients alive for you know, decades, Like we know stuff that works, we know it doesn't work, and we were using COVID to good effect.
And so that was kind of the first thing. And and but I'll just say that first chapter.
Although I was attacked viciously, even by my own university, within three months it became the standard of care worldwide. So people forget that my early, my early should I say, dissent in treatment of COVID was later validated.
But when it got.
Sorry, was it was it validated with recognition?
Yeah?
Well no, no, no, no, no no one ever said, hey, doctor Grace, sorry.
We attacked you.
No that that goes water under the bridge, no one, no one, No one ever apologizes. But I know that I was validated because what I had said earlier became the standard of care. But no, there's no public you know, championing or you get what I'm saying.
Late, So.
But then you know, the same thing happened with ivermactin is that we had this incredible sign The first patient I treated turned around overnight with ivermactin. And I was also talked to the doctors from various places around the world that they were just telling me these incredible benefits. I mean, nobody was dying in places they were using ivermactin. I talked to patients in South America and India, plus
all of the studies showed the same thing. And then I got to testify again in Senator Johnston's hearing in December of twenty twenty, and that testimony went viral, and then ivermactin became a real issue. It became it was on the tongues of everybody. Everyone was considering it.
But when I first testified, I listen.
I didn't think I would get a ticker tape parade, but I thought people would appreciate that we'd identified this really positive data signal and they would incorporate it into their protocols and people would start to use it. But this is where my life changed, is that the opposite happened, and I was very confused. I really did know what was going on, but instead it was immediately attacked, dismissed.
I was personally attacked Paul Marreck was personally attacked. Hit jobs showed up in the media, and I saw these blatant distortions and untruths being published by the major media organizations around the world. And they all had the same formula, same template, used similar quotes from pedigree doctors from these high fluting agencies and or universities.
And it was to say, it was disappointing. It was really a kind of disorienting.
Did the word corruption, did the word corruption?
And not at not initially?
No. And I'll tell you why I didn't leap to corruption initially. It is because there's this thing in medicine. I don't know if you're aware of it, but there's a field of medicine that actually was first originated in the early nineteen nineties, and it's called evidence based medicine. And it was this development where we as a field decided to really make sure that any treatments we used
have sufficient evidence of safety and efficacy. And part of that field is assessing or assigning a quality of evidence to everything, and so.
It's a very cautious type of thing.
It's first member, do no harm, right, But also they just wanted to make sure that the way we treated diseases had scientific evidence to support them, and I believed in evidence based medicine how was practice, But I came to find out that evidence based medicine got corrupted and
distorted from its original precepts. And so when it was when my first recommendations were not accepted, like I'd been used to that, I'd had evidence based medicine arguments with colleagues for a decade, because every time I said something worked, they were like, where's the random controlled trial to show that. There's this trial that shows this this trial that shows that the evidence is conflicting. It's controversial, and I'm I had some of these tired arguments later, but as a physician.
I knew what worked.
I mean, I was doing stuff in my practice, in my ICU. I could see patients turning around if I did stuff to them. But yet I'd be lambasted with all of these evidence based medicine arguments that what I was actually doing to help people wasn't working.
And so it was a dystopian world a little bit.
And and so at first I thought this was about an argument over evidence. Is that the agencies around the world and the scientists around the world we're not going to rescommend something until they had what's called high quality, rigorous evidence. You know, my word that I'm turning patients around was not enough. We needed the big trial, right even.
Though result called up just a second, I'm intrigued. You're in a hospital, you're working in a hospital, and you're doing all this and you're surrounded by other medical people, doctors in space have you.
Yep?
Couldn't they see what you were seeing as the result?
Well, here's the thing.
No, because they're not involved with my patients and me telling them that I'm seeing patients turn around with the use of a certain drug, they'd have to take my word for it.
And they were I'm.
Just say, propagandized with so much negativity towards potential treatments for COVID. Right, So just real quick, as you mentioned, I wrote the book The War and I vermactin the one of my colleagues could have written the book The War on hydroxy chloroquin because if you read my book when I when I described the war and I remactin, it was the same exact war as hydroxychlorquin a year prior, the same tactic, same results. And so now I'm kind
of jumping to. What I've learned is that me low cost, widely available, effective therapeutic that threatens the financial interest or the markets that popped up in COVID, not only just for the vaccines, but remdesivir, pack, Slovid, molnipevir, all of these pipeline patented pharmaceuticals, those, all these cheap, safe, effective, repurpose therapies threaten them. And so what they do to
those therapies is they employ disinformation campaigns. And when I first gave my testimony and ivermactin and the response to it, I couldn't understand it.
I didn't I didn't know what was going on.
I thought this is more about just like people arguing about wanting, you know, the best evidence.
And I thought it was more of a scientific argument.
And it was only four months after that when I was still confused, although I started to get other signals that there was something more nefarious than a scientific disagreement. One of the first signs was my review paper, which had been accepted for publication after passing three rounds of rigorous peer review by senior scientists, three of them selected from the NIH and CDC in the US.
The journal had accepted it for publication, but they wouldn't publish it. And week after week went by, and I.
Was getting really disturbed by this because it was the winter of twenty twenty twenty one, which was the highest death rates in this country since before or since, I mean, it was a wicked winter of death from COVID, and they wouldn't publish my papers, and I finally I wrote an accusatory email to the journal. I said, I suspect scientific misconduct, and within a day the editor reached out to my editor and we'd learned that they were retracting the paper.
They were not going to publish it. Your question was answered, My question was answered.
And that's when I finally realized I was up against something. I didn't know what it was, but it wasn't good, and it wasn't scientific, it wasn't humanitarian. I knew there was a force that was working against what we were trying to do, which has helped people in the world, and so I started get the feeling like there was something out there that was working against us. And that was the first time when I realized.
This wasn't just a scientific argument.
And then what changed my life and which inspired that book, was in March of twenty twenty one, so four months after my testimony, I got an email one morning from someone I didn't know. It was a two line email, and it was from a guy named Professor William B. Grant, and he's one of the most published researchers on vitamin D in the world. And he wrote me an email out of the blue, said, dear doctor Corey, what they're
doing to ivermectin. They've been doing to vitamin D for decades, and he included a link to an article called the Disinformation Playbook. And I was really intrigued by this email, so I click on the article and I start reading and it's written by an organization called the Union for Concerns Scientists. It was written in twenty seventeen, before the pandemic, and it outlines what industries do when science emergers that's
inconvenient to their interests. And they're named after American football plays.
It's like the fake, the fix, the screen, the blitz, the diversion, And I'm reading the descriptions of these tactics and I'm like, oh my god, Suddenly it's like I had the teacher's addition to what was going on because I had I had dozens of examples of each of those tactics being deployed against ivermactin in the prior four months, and I realized that I was like had a front row seat and I was the target of a global
disinformation campaign against ivermactin. And that's kind of one of the probably one of the biggest, not the only biggest awakenings that the world that I thought I lived in was operating by very different principles and forces.
How did that affect you?
Oh, it's an odd answer, but in a way, I wouldn't say it made me happy, But yeah, I'm always trying to figure out problems and understand ways to navigate and go.
Forward and to help.
That article helped me really positively because now I felt I understood the problem and what I was up against and how I could maybe start to approach it because I was really confused for four months. I started having suspicions that there was something going on, and there's probably people who didn't want IVERMAC them to be recommended for everyone. But when I read that article, it really brought everything to a sharp focus, and it was interesting about the
disinformation playbook. It was invented in the nineteen fifties by a pr firm, so it was literally it's a playbook put together by a public relations firm that was hired by the tobacco industry. When science emerged that was inconvenient to their interests, right, the science around cancer, and so the disinformation around tobacco had been practiced for fifty years, but the pharmaceutical industry have honed that to like an
assassin level. And the other thing is Fharma has more control than tobacco because Farmer is one of the biggest advertisers in the world, particularly in the United States tapers, televisions, you know, not New Zealand, as I understand, but here it is.
But third in the list of big expenders, oh for sure. And in lobbying and congress, farmers number one. It's two to three times the coal and gas budget, as I've understood, the number one advertiser in American media. And so they literally control all of the information sources. And so people listen to media and television newspapers for like health guidance, you're not going to hear any centing opinions. Then what's in the interest of the pharmaceutal industry and why people don't understand.
That to this day. I just I can't figure that out. Why people have not figured that out well.
On a much smaller scale, it's it's not non existent, if I might put it that way, not non existent in this country. Uh, it's it's much smaller. But but I know that that has happened, so I know of somebody who was affected by it. Yeah, and advertising is what keeps is what keeps the media going?
Yeah, for sure here it's I think it's the scale of their influence and powers is many magnitudes over what it must be like in New Zealand.
But but the.
Thing is they don't necessarily just need to control the media. And this is are now going from Old Pier to New Pier. It's not just the media, it's the journals.
It's the medical journals themselves.
And I think the foundation for all of the fraud in COVID, especially against early repurpose drugs like hydroxy coroquin and ivermactin, it begins at the level of the high impact medical journals. They're the ones that allowed the publication of manipulated, fraudulent trials attacking those drugs. Once you have those journals, those manuscripts published in those major journals, that's the foundation for everything else that happens, because you don't
need the media at that point. Now that supports the health agencies. So the health agency, look, we're looking at the best science, the British Medical Journal, you know, the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association. They say, hydroxychlorcon doesn't work, ivermactin doesn't work.
And so I was watching this.
Global fraud with millions dying because they weren't having access to early treat and drugs. And so when you ask me first how that felt when I read the disinformation playbook, as I after I learned Decision Lead, and it started to see what the consequences of this massive disinformation was and how much destruction they achieved and the humanitarian catastrophe that unfolded, which is needless deaths worldwide. And then I'm
going to have to bring in another difficult topic. That same disinformation campaign against early treatment DOUGS was employed to prop up the most toxic and lethal intervention in the history of medicine, which is these mRNA vaccines. I don't want to detract from the ironmatin thing, but I have to tell you I watched that same campaign prop up the vaccines, and so it was like a double whammy.
And all I want to say laden is COVID would have been over early on, or it would not have been this major worldwide catastrophe that it was had science not been so controlled, corrupted and manipulated to make billions of dollars. I mean, look at the billions they made off of vaccines rem dec of the I don't know if they use reum descritate in New Zealand most of the world. They did here they did, even despite the WHO saying it didn't work, which was really bizarre to me.
Like it's it's infused into every COVID patient's arm in the United States, and it's a worthless drug. It has no logical sense for working. The data the shows that it works is manipulated, and so like I basically Layton, I based, you know, from from the comfortable world that I thought.
We thought we were.
Organized and respected and followed certain rules and medical ethics, and it was somewhat of an orderly world that I thought I lived in. Obviously with with evil and violence and all those things, but I thought the institutions were marshaled against that to it to you know, a few years into COVID, I realized I lived in a dystopian world where the institutions on their face look like they're
doing the right thing. Behind the scenes, they were basically creating actions and policies that were directly harmful to not only my country's citizenry, but countries around the world. And I would say the western and most media saturated in advance, like the advanced health economies of the.
World, they did the worst.
They were the most manipulated and also the most profitable. And so it basically I realized I lived in a different world than I thought I lived in.
Now would be a good time, I think, to introduce the tourist who was well over wait and came into your hospital. Yeah, and you took care of him. Yeah, just tell us the detail.
Now, are you referring to the patient who I discovered was fully vaccinated?
This was a guy who was I con't remember it. This is the guy who was was why I were white. He was a tourist.
Oh, so that was around ivermactin that so that wasn't my page. I'm not sure, because there's there's a couple of instances of positions that I used to begin some topics in my book.
But was that It may have been because.
I think because I'm pretty I'm pretty sure now that he actually mentioned in our discussion.
But this was around Ivermactin.
Yes, yeah, So, so the instance that I use is that in my research on Ivermactin, not only did we start seeing all these trials, but I realized that the first paper that showed the incredible evidence of kfcy of Ivermactin was actually a case series from the Dominican Republic which was posted on a preprint server in June of twenty twenty. That that goes back to the statement I just made too late, and is that COVID would have never been an issue if we were like objective, reasonable,
pragmatic and looking at all evidence equally. But what happened in the Dominican Republic is in March of twenty twenty. Remember March of twenty twenty. This is when COVID was just beginning. There's this really So what happened is the lead author of that case series, which had immense difficulty getting published, which is another thing I don't want to go backwards into corruption. But not only were the journals publishing manipulated trials with pre determined results, they were.
Rejecting and retracting any.
Science which advanced or support of alternative cheap therapies. And so the first time they posted their paper was in June of twenty twenty. I think it took them a year to publish it in like some tertiary journal. But I ended up becoming in contact with the lead author, and I even know when I was in Dominican Republic.
Is that's the place that I would go vacation.
I got to meet up with him and we had drinks one night and he told me this the origin story of his discovery of ivermactin in COVID, and that was in March of twenty twenty. He said that he owned a series of clinics in the Minia Republic and he got a call one night from a doctor who was on call and had just admitted some overweight I think it was an American tourist who was hypoxic on oxygen, not looking good.
Was that the story?
Yeah, but this is like the origin story, and so he you know, the doctor calls and says, hey, you know, this guy's looking really bad.
He's like, what do you think we should do?
And the doctor apparently had researched or known about ivermactin as an anti viral, and so he asked his essential boss for permission to treat the guy with ivermactin. And so doctor Radondo, who is my colleague who I was talking to at this time. Doctor Dondo, in his account he said, you know what, I convened our committee, you know, because they, you know, his clinics had one, like a
therapeutic committee. He said, I consulted them and we discussed the case, and we understood the gravity of this patient. And I called the doctor back who was on call, and I said, you have we're giving you permission to treat him with ivermectin, and the doctor replied, thanks, I gave it to him an hour ago, which I always loved, so the doctor of vision. But the point of that story was the guy rapidly improved overnight, and I think he got discharged the next day off oxygen.
So it was like this dramatic response.
And so after that first patient, they quickly developed a protocol. They treated everyone in their urgent cares and emergency rooms with avermeactin. They did this for months, and then in June twenty twenty they reported on thirty three hundred patients treated with iver maactin on arrival to any of their facilities, and out of the thirty three hundred patients, they had sixteen hospitalizations and two deaths.
Two deaths out.
Of thirty three hundred patients arriving at an urgency at urgent cares and emergency.
Rooms, which is a dramatic result.
And anyway, that's where that adnecdote came from. But the point of that story is, like that paper showed up on a preprint server of June to twenty twenty. There's no advanced health economy in the world that was monitoring preprints looking for data that possibly showed early evidence of the efficacy. So even if they were interested, they could have done an immediate trial, whatever evidence based medicine standards they wanted to do, they could have done that, but
there was no efforts of doing that. There was no efforts at looking at available repurpose drugs. Everything was about testing pricey patented pharmaceuticals. And so I knew the whole gig was up. I mean, eventually I figured it out, like repurpose drugs are the Achilles heel. And you know what I mean my repurpose right, it's off patent drugs or drugs that have been proved for one indication that you find now that's really effective in another.
Whereas Farmer doesn't like that.
With every disease, they want to come up with new stuff that's on patent that is immensely profitable. So they do not like off patent repurpose drugs being used to treat anything because there's no money in it, which is actually false. There is money you could make a profit, you just can't make absurd obscene profits that that industry is used to. That industry is a criminal syndicate. That's also the other thing I've learned in these five years
is I've studied the pharmacuit industry. I've looked at their history of criminal finds, civil finds. They operate with impunity. They are constantly being sued and found guilty for the most nefarious actions in the world, and yet again people seem unaware of that.
Is it that they don't want to know? Is is it that that I want to believe that, I want to that, I want to steer themselves off. Course.
No, No, it's much cruder and coarser and simpler than that, and it's much more base than that. They know, they absolutely know they are an industry that works for their shareholders, not for their patients. They see this as a business marketplace. They see competitive threats and they destroy them. Iver Mactin was a competitor to all of their products, and it got destroyed and they used all the powers that they
could marshal. Hydroxychloroquin the same, and there's also a lot of others, but those were the two most prominent, and those are the two that they most deployed their resources and attacking.
What's the I'm trying to think of the name of the of the surgeon in Newcastle Hospital in Australia, who's who's been mettling this. There are medicos in this part of the world, Australasia who have who have made stands. And another one I interviewed right at the very beginning of all this, and he was so onto it, so well, not just convincing, but he was so backed up by what he knew and how he knew it that I undertook an attempt to introduce him to some well shure,
we say political people here. No nobody wanted to know. No, not interested, not interested. Now but when you but when you when you understand, of course, the nature of the people who were running the country at that time, starting with the top of the beehive, which is where the government is the queen bee. If you want, you understand why they didn't want to know.
They all obey. And this is might be trait might be a little bit too explosive, but they all obey. What I discover is that you know, well, I always knew that humans, we are creatures of incentives. We all respond to incentives, whether they'd be positive or negative. And what I came to find out is that everyone seems to work for their masters. Because the one central thing that I took away, which is the most disappointing with what I learned about humanity and COVID.
Is that the desire to remaine employed is paramount.
People will not blow up their careers over ethical.
Or moral objections even though they know harm.
Is being caused. You did they protect themselves? Well, here's the difference. I don't want to call myself a hero.
Because really, I'll I'll do that for you.
No, no, because I don't think it's correct.
I was just early, so I was naive.
If I knew what would befall me, I'd like to tell you I would have done the same thing. But it's different for doctors who came after me, because they saw what happened to me, and so they'd have to really willingly commit career suicide. Which is when I did what I was doing. I didn't think I would get career honors or you know, awards, But I didn't think what was going to happen to my life was going to happen. So I went in with naivete, not heroism.
That's just my honest assessment. But even when after though, I will, I'll give myself credit for this, even when my life started going sideways because of that, and which shocked me because I'd always been celebrated in my field.
By the way, I was very well.
Hopefully this doesn't come across egotisto, but I was a very prominent physician in my own right. In my specialty, I was known as a global pioneer for a sub especially called critical care ulcure snography I'd written a textbook that was published in seven languages. I traveled the country and world teaching my specialty.
By the way, don't forget that.
Yeah, no, I was like really well known and well published, and you know, I've been recruited by a top research university. I was like their head clinician and critical care. I was a major clinical leader in that institution. So you know, the fall from Grace was pretty far and fast. But even as that fall began to happen, I wasn't going to change tactics. I was like, oh, you want to do this, I'm coming right back at you. And I thought,
however I could, I had my nonprofit. I just kept putting out truths, putting out what I've always done, which is teaching what I know, researching what I don't know, and then disseminating that. And the more I did that, the more stuff happened to me. And look, Layton, you were just mentioning a prominent doctor. I guess that prominent doctor was also trying to speak truth. Did they get punished?
To be honest, I can't answer that. He is still in his position.
Okay, But if he was advocating for things that went that was dissenting with this, and I'm using air quotes here.
Consensus that was the other thing.
I realized that scientific consensus, whether it be in medicine or in climate or anything, is a manufactured consensus. You cannot reach consensus without deep influence of economic interests, because if you come up with a consensus that is scientifically inconvenient to the prevailing economic interest, they will make sure that doesn't happen. And so now I'm talking a little
bit outside of medicine, but certainly in medicine. I realized that the guidelines that I'd followed for treatment of diseases, for everything in medicine is that they're largely controlled and manufactured.
And so.
Maybe demoralization is a strong word, maybe it's not, but I will say this, I'm I'm a physician, a strained estranged from allopathic medicine. I will say I got excommunicated. Luckily I'm still in practice. I'm in private practice. I'm a fee based I don't take insurance. The sadness of that is not everyone can see me or afford to see me. But the beauty in that is I get to practice medicine as.
I see fit. I can do whatever I want.
I can employ different therapies, I can try whatever I want to help patients. And I've learned so much about medicine. I am so free and more inspired as a physician than I've ever been.
And that's just me today.
And so part of what I just told you is that fall from Grace was really turbulent and difficult. I lost income sources along the way. I have three children. By the way, we pay for college in this country, and it's really expensive. I have three daughters.
That you know.
Like when my income got cut off, I mean it was scary. I mean I have a house, I have a mortgage, I have all those things. But luckily, in my case, I landed on my feet. There's many other doctors who didn't have the profile or didn't recover the way I did, who've lost their licenses and livelihoods for doing things as simple as treating people with ivermactin based on the science and the rationale for it. And let me just go back to the Disinformation Playbook and those five five football plays.
The football play called.
The blitz, that's when the attackers go after the quarterback. The blitz in the Disinformation Playbook is when they go after researchers who are producing the science that's inconvenient. And that's why when I read that article that day, I realized that I'd been blitzed.
Paul Merrick had been blitzed.
And there's like decades of evidence of various scientists. When you come out with a contrarian opinion, you get blitzed. And I saw doctors all over the world, Canada, US, every and by the way, I have devoted immense amounts of time to defending them in their core cases, in their hearings with medical boards where they're trying to get their licenses, trying to argue for them, showing that the science supported everything they did. I will tell you it
doesn't work. That's the other thing. They weaponized, not only the media, the journals, the agencies, but also the medical boards and so doctors with contrarian aprisonances, no matter how scientifically base it is, they will go after you. Keep it in keep in line, or you're gone. And that's the sadness because the persecution of me and my colleagues and what happened to our careers, I don't think it
was meant to personally punish us. It was to make us an example because we were the most public and they wanted to take us down. And I think that's to send a message to any other doctor who wants to step out of line. And it worked, and it works. Yeah, you have com client doctors all over the world.
Now, now it would be a good time to just change gears.
Sure.
The story of Andy Hill and the World Health Organization, Oh boy. I found this to be because I haven't read the entire book, and I've dipped in and out of what interested me, and I found this chapter to be the most fascinating.
Yep.
If you don't if you don't like that, you don't agree with me, then that's only because I haven't really read some of the others that Well.
Here's the thing, here's the thing.
I'm just going to go back to the Disinformation Playbook, right, So it's five plays each and every one of them are devastating and I and as you probably can tell, like my book is thematically structured around that article to
called the Disinformation Playbook. Because when I got that email that day and I read that article, I realized that's what's going on in the world, and I said, I committed myself on that day to write a book as a case example of how disinformation campaigns are executed in practice. I wanted to do like a case study so that everyone in world could read it and that they would then be immune to this immense amount of propaganda and
censorship which creates these things. And one of those tactics, right, we talked about the blitz. The fake is when they do these predetermined trials. They manipulate trials to have a certain result. But Andy Hill is the example I used for something called the diversion where they co opt officials and and and.
Andy Hill was that example.
So any Hill was the lead researcher for the WHO, and he was in charge of a team that was supposed to research all repurposed off patent drugs that could potentially be used in COVID. And when I discovered this a week after my ivermactin testimony the conference organized because we both presented the same conference, I said, who's this
guy researching ivromatic? Because he had more data than I had, and he had better data than I had, and so I reached out to him, and he and I quickly became collegial.
He was a really nice guy. We were both invested.
We were both really impressed with the data around ivermactin, and I remained in contact with him for months and he was very supportive. The problem was the more supportive he got. He gave a talk in South Africa on Zoom one day, and he was like basically telling the world, get ready, get your supplies of ivermectin together, and you know this is going to be the treatment.
For early COVID.
The day he gave that lecture, two days later, he told me that his sponsors at the WHO told him he's not allowed to speak publicly anymore. And after that day his behaviors started to get very strange.
It was not the same guy I knew he ended up.
He ended up posting a draft of his paper which reviewed all of the trials, and there was so much nonsense in it that didn't match the discussions we'd had or our own interprets of the data that me and Paul we told him, We said, we think you're doing scientific his conduct.
We don't know why. We peer reviewed his paper.
We suggested the additions that he should make to make it more correct.
He ignored it.
He left it up on a preprint server and then he went even f and he just basically he stopped.
Sharing data, started doing all these things.
And then Tess Lowry from the UK was another colleague of mine, caught him on a zoom and basically attacked him for the same thing. What are you doing, any Why are you writing these things when it doesn't match the data that we have, And he basically admitted that he was under pressure from his sponsors, and basically so he got co opted because he's he's a research who
has long worked for international healthcare agency. His whole livelihood is getting grants to do research, and whoever was funding him did not like what he was finding and they wanted him to shut up. And that's kind of the main point of that that story with Any. And I stopped talking to him because well, he also stopped talking to me because I realized he got captured.
That was one of the aspects of the book I found. You're reading away happily and all of a sudden, your attention gets stolen from you by something like this, this video that that doctor Tess Laurie Yeah produced And so I went off and found it. It wasn't easy because it wasn't where it was supposed to be, but I dug it out and it wasn't that long. I think it was twenty minutes, maybe.
Ed.
It was fascinating watching this fella squirm, squirm, that's what he was. He was squirming, squirming. He looked so uncomfortable, He looked so uncovering. Although he tried to defend himself in words, his body and his you know, movements and facial expression did not lie.
He and Tess was fierce. I mean, Test showed who she was in that conversation. I mean, he was somewhat of a colleague, we'd gotten to know him a little bit. But she was unremitting. I mean she just really said, what are you doing? I mean, there's fifteen thousand people dying a day in the world and you're putting out this you know, you're changing the science around ivermectin and how.
You present it, Like how can you sleep at night? Is what she said to him.
So after that, after she did that, and you haven't spoken to him, what eventuated?
Well, actually after she did that.
She never showed me the video at the time, but she broke off all relationships.
With any before I did.
I continue to have relationship with him because I was trying to do good cop while she was bad cop, because he was feeding me data that I thought was really important, because you know what his job was to search all of the clinical trial registries in the world, identify all of the randomized control trials on any particular medicine.
And by the time he got to ivermectin, they'd already researched hydroxtic cork and all these other things, and so he had knowledge, and he was in contact and communication with investigators with ongoing trials, and he was like, letting me know at some of this data show, which is
by the way, not really scientifically rigorous. You shouldn't be sharing data of ongoing trials, but he was getting early reports of either trial results or ongoing data, and so I thought it was a productive relationship for me because I was just putting stuff out there around ivermactin.
But eventually, I can't remember how our.
Relationship ended, but he ended his contract with WHO. Then he published a wickedly positive meta analysis which departed from his work with WHO, because when he presented his data, Who the WHO did not recommend ivermactin.
And that's a whole other scandal.
What they did with the ivernmatin recommendation because the data that he presented them overwhelmingly supported the use of iromactin, But they ended up throwing out tens of trials that he had a mass that met their protocol for include usion. They threw them out saying, oh, this is what's wrong with this one and that one. And even after throwing everything out, they found an eighty two percent reduction immortality. But then the WHO labeled it as low quality evidence.
And as a result, because it's such low quality, they said, most people in the world would not want to be treated with something based on low quality evidence outside of a clinical trial. And so the WHO is official recommendation from March of twenty twenty one which do not use
outside of a clinical trial. And if you read the wording of that recommendation, it there's nothing more that infuriates me to this day than reading that document because they basically say, there's a paragraph in that document wich I think is really important that this world be aware of.
It goes as follows. The Clinical Development Guidelines Group has found that although the data is in support of ivermectin use, it is of such low certainty that most well informed citizens of the world would not want to be treated with it outside of a trial. And Layton, can I
just give you my interpretation of that sentence. That means in the real world sense, I'm picturing myself as a patient ill with COVID in a hospital room on six leaders of nasal flow canula oxygen, breathing at thirty times a minute, feeling terrible, and I'm declining, and a doctor comes into my room and says to me, doctor Corey, there's this medicine.
It's one of the safest.
Medicines in history, and based on the best available evidence, it shows that your chance of dying will be reduced by eighty two percent, because that's also in their documents, statistically significant eighty two percent reduction immortality if you use ivermathin So let's say this imaginary doctor would tell me that, and then he would say, but the evidence is it's low certainty.
Would you like to be treated with it?
So that means that most well informed citizens would respond, you know, because the evidence is of such low certainty, doctor, I'm not comfortably being treated outside of a clinical trial. Did you understand the absurdity of what we're talking about? Yep,
that's literally the world we live in. So when we go back to the old pier to new pier, like, I'm watching an organization that's supposed toly shepherd the public health of the citizens of the world use this brazenly clownish, absurd, illogical, impractical, and inhuman reasoning for one reason only to not recommend ifromactin. And why don't they want to do that because of the people who control the WHO. It's controlled by Big Pharma and Bill Gates, who has immense interest in Big Pharma.
So of course the WHO it's not a public health organization, it's it's literally run by the pharmaceutical industry, and so of course they not going to promote a repurposed drug. But the contortions and the clownishness that they had to go to in order to avoid doing that is so disturbing.
Is so disturbing strong enough.
No I could I probably I'm a New Yorker, so I then probably go into curse words.
But it's funny though. Actually I love how you just asked that. Ladies.
You know why because when I talk about these topics, I sometimes use the phrase I've run out of descriptors, Like I don't know how to describe this stuff. Evil, inhumane, corrupt, absurd, brazen, clownish. I don't even know how to describe it. But it's dystopian, is the word that's frightening.
Yeah.
By the way, the interview I did right back in the very early days of this and I said I couldn't think of his name, Thomas BARROTI.
Oh, yeah, Tom Bardi, Sure, I know Tom.
Yeah, And Tom Tom was I mean, he was on the hydroxychloroquin very early. He knew that one, Yes, he knew. I'vever met them words. And and here's the other point. He's another example like a Paul Marek less so a Pierre Corey, but a literally globally prominent physician who had reached the heights of medicine, celebrated beyond belief, one of the most highly published erudite you know, brilliant physicians who got taken down for his opinions in COVID because they
were contrarian to the objective. It doesn't matter how how high you rise, they can take anyone down.
I've got to turn this round on to you again. Yeah, you got taken down, but now you're now you're thriving. Yes, and you gave us, you gave us, you gave us part of an explanation for that. I think because you're independent and you can charge, and you apologize for people who can't see you. And I saw some thing on ONYX I think yesterday had said you charged twelve hundred thirteen hundred dollars or something and that was abusiful. People like comments without understanding what the.
Can I talk about that for a second?
Yeah, I got a lot.
Because it's so It saddens me so much because people think that if I charged twelve hundred dollars that I'm getting the twelve hundred dollars.
Like, people don't understand how businesses work.
My practice has twenty five employees, We have teams of nurses. We do proactive follow up. Me and my partner have committed to being the best employers we can. We very early on, before we even financially we were barely financially solvent, we offered them health insurance. Now we offer them retirement plans where we match. Like, I do not make a lot of money from my practice, I really don't. But people look at the fee we charge and they think that I'm laughing all the way to the bank, or
I'm retiring on a Hawaiian island. The economics of a medical practice that survives only on consultation is impossible to calculate because you have to understand how the medical system makes its money.
They have massive profit.
Centers that a practice where it's all our sweat and tears, like I spend immense amount of times with my patients.
We don't have imaging centers.
I don't have blood labs where I can charge dollars, and I don't have surgeons and procedures or imaging. You know, that's how the economics of healthcare works. And so it saddens me that people look at a fee that I charge and they think that I'm overcharging. To be honest, I know what other folks, and I don't want to call us alternative or integrative, but I will tell you we are the most reasonably priced that I've seen.
I have.
I know colleagues that I like and enjoy respect.
They charge an immense amount of money for what they do, far far higher than what I do. We do pragmatic pricing and we deliver excellent care. And again, if this comes across as defensive, it's somewhat defenses, but it's also trying to explain to people that you don't understand that that fee is not like goes into my wallet by the time against my wallet, it's like a fifteenth of what that is. I bet you wish that is anyway, Yeah, I wish it did. But and you know I could.
And here's the thing. I could probably charge fifteen thousand or I don't. I probably couldn't, but three thousand of consultation five thousand, I don't. We're just trying to make a decent salary while delivering excellent care of supporting our employees.
That's all we are. Are just a normal business.
Let's go back to public health officials. You'd be familiar with Ashley Bluefield.
Heard the name that's in New Zealand, right, Yes, yeah, I'm You're all the same. By the way, I don't need to know their names.
Okay, but Ashley bloom well, Ashley Bloomfield.
Maybe unless unless you're telling me this one stood out. Okay, Well he did.
He stood out because because he don't know, because he dumped on Ivermecton and.
Standing out leading Hold on, let me check you on that.
No, no, no, no, no, we're not No, we're not there yet. I haven't finished.
Okay, good.
He dumped on Ivermecton and kept dumping on Ivermecton and that really pissed off a fairly large number of people in this country. The sad admit is that he got a knighthood at the end of this, and the Prime Minister got a damehood. And and I've asked this question of other people on vodcast on podcasts, and I'm going
to ask you. I wasn't going to actually because I've asked it enough, but I'm going to ask you, would you support a move and I'm not, but would you support a move to remove those honors, so called honors from people who did such damage to their country?
Of course I would, of course I would.
That that goes back to my adjectives of clown world, bizarro world. I mean, people are celebrated for participating in a humanitarian catastrophe. They're getting awards and united and damed. I mean that, what world are we living in?
And you know, you know what? You know what this triggers in my mind, Laydon, is that what what COVID was.
I mean, there's a lot of things, but Ultimately, in my mind, it was a war of information, and those that control the information sources and the dissemination of information, they disseminated consistently corrupted information in the forms of propaganda, and then they censored helpful, life saving information.
It caused the humanitarian catastrophe.
And and so to celebrate those that were practitioners of it is.
It saddening?
Is one word? Again, I got to break down my fassaurs. Yes, but it's absurd, absurd, absurd.
Okay, but that's not the end of Ashley Bloomfield. He's now with the He's now with the w Y Show, and and the w A Show is trying to corral the world with regards as you would be well aware with regard to their plan for the future. And and the question that I have asked others before as well is should New Zealand join up because they're going FI.
Yeah. Yeah.
The more you centralize power and control, the more not not the more susceptible it is to being captured. Because they can capture diverse entities across the world, but the the more you see power into a centralized.
Entity that is demonstrably captured.
There's been documentation for twenty years of how the WHO of old, which is I would say last century, has been transformed. It literally works in the service of big Pharma. So any country that doubles that joints the WHO is basically seeding their sovereignty and their authority to corporate interests, which is antithetical to the purpose of government. Why would
a government seat itself to a profit making corporation. I mean, to go into gates would be another hour, but he's on record showing that, like the eighteen billion that he learned that he earned in the pandemic through his investments into all the things that they mandated. So I just don't understand why I see the world in a certain way and so few others don't.
Actually, I shouldn't say that I don't understand.
I do understand because people have been sickened with immense propaganda from every sphere three hundred and sixty degrees.
And can we talk.
About propaganda for a second late, because the definition that I've been most moved by for what propaganda is, it's actually from a colleague patient of mine. He's a world expert in propaganda. His name is Professor Mark Crispin Miller. From New York University. And his definition is that propaganda is a story or a message to get.
You to think or act in a certain way.
And when I first heard that definition, I'd already been deeply studied on disinformation. I'd already seen a world act so bizarrely against their own interests. I saw people lining up for these toxic vaccines. I saw examples of like someone pass out in centers after getting a vaccine, and yet the line didn't disperse.
People kept showing up for more vaccines. And so the story or message to get you.
Think or act in a certain way, the world just has no idea that they're being propagated. They're being manipulated with information to get them to think correct in certain ways, and their actions are oftentimes directly opposed to their interests as a human, to their well being and their safety. And they don't know this. They don't know they're being manipulated. And I don't know how to communicate that.
To the world.
But I really my main message is very trite, right because other people like Trump and other people are saying, like turn off your televisions, turn off your radios, employ critical thinking. You know, understand what is behind those information sources. What are the financial interests that are driving that information towards you?
I mean, I just wish.
The world would just somehow be able to identify and listen to independent, unconflicted researchers, doctors, media, folks, you.
Know, folks like you. I'm sure you don't take pharmal money, Laton.
They never offered.
Yeah, that's what was gonna say.
But they wouldn't. They wouldn't.
You wouldn't have me on if that was the case.
They wouldn't. They wouldn't get it. So Professor Mark Crispin Miller, and what's his what's his specialty?
So he was a professor of propaganda at New York University and he.
Saw all of this, so hang on. So he's a professor of propaganda, not to propagate propaganda, but to to educate.
The history, ramifications, consequences, presence of propaganda in society. I mean, he's that that's been his life's work because and I think it's as probably one of the most important topics in the world today.
It doesn't get discussed.
But remember propaganda has started back in the nineteen twenties with Barnet's and the Germans used it, and everyone seems to identify propaganda with like the Soviet Union.
North Korea, Germany. And you know, one of the.
Really funny anecdotes that really has stayed with me today is that I was talking to a friend of mine who is German, and he said, you know, back, you know, before the Berlin Wall fell.
He said, the East.
Germans, they didn't listen to the television. They knew that it was the state line to them. They were well aware that you don't trust the television, you don't trust the media.
They laughed at that stuff.
Whereas I live in a country in the United States where people turn on their televisions and radio stations and read their newspapers.
They have no idea what's behind them.
They think that these are well meaning journalists with integrity, who've done investment negations and have determined accuracy using facts and conclusions.
That is not true.
If it's printed in the papers, it's because someone allowed it to be printed.
You know, you can't.
Print anything that's inconvenient to the powers that be.
Something you just said was a trigger, and I was about to launch into the fact that education is a failure on a number of fronts. It's a failure here, it's a failure practically everywhere. But my mind was cast back to when I was still in still in school, young young, I suggest even sort of the end of primary school and certainly early high school. And this was analyzing stories from the paper in class and deconstructing them and working out you know what, It wasn't propaganda. It
was how to find propaganda, if you like. I don't know that I ever realized that, but it was to basically find the true path about about all sorts of things. I don't I don't think it lasted that long as a subject, but I don't believe it happens.
At all now.
No, No, you don't learn to think, certainly don't learn to think critically as a kid, and it's easy to brainwash you under those circumstances.
I totally agree. You know, I want to inject something positive. Why Why because because let's go back to how we started leading. You asked me about old Pierre and new Pierre. You know what happened to me is literally my perception, my awareness of reality and society and what's really going on truly expanded. I'm not going to claim I know everything. I do know I know a lot more of the world than I did. But the positive point is and
that's been positive for me. I really think the only way you can live is being as well informed as you can, and I think I was very poorly informed in my prior existence.
But I'm not the only one. This has happened to a lot of people.
You know. We use that phrase that they were woken up in COVID And I recently wrote a post. I have a substack that's pretty popular. I do a lot of writings on medical and medical adjacent topics, and I was doing a post on the trust in hospitals and physicians because there was a paper that got a lot of attention last July where Americans trust in hospitals and physicians from twenty nineteen to twenty twenty three or four
plummeted from seventy one percent to forty percent. Americas are disgusted with the medical system and how they responded in all actions they took. And I also found data in the media. So there's this survey they've done about media for like, I think they had data going back twenty five years and they asked respondents to ask about their trust to media and there's three choices. It was lots of trust, some trust, and no trust at all.
And for the first time.
In history, last year the highest proportion were those that had no trust in all in media. I think it was like forty one percent, and then the other choices were something less. And so I think people are waking up to the fact that we live in a world of propaganda, and I think that's only good for the health of the world, for our sanity, for our actions, because if you don't trust and people who are lying to you, hopefully you can make decisions that are better for your.
Welfare and your family's welfare.
You know, you've distracted me from some of the directions I would have liked to have gone in, and we're going to conclude in a minute with one of those. But it's occurred to me that, let me put it this way, the book and I have a lot of books, the book is fascinating. It's fascinating for a multitude of reasons. First of all for its information and education. Secondly, because of the way it's written. And I found myself thinking, this is a scene out of a crime novel or
some equivalent to that. It was like it was like you weren't really writing about yourself and the circumstances that you found yourself in. You were almost almost being fictitious about it and writing about somebody else. But it was that it's the book has written, your co author or whatever you call her, and you have done a superb job.
I appreciate that.
There are two things I really want to touch on. One is you made reference toward the end of the book. Here we are in the last two paragraphs of the vaccine Disinformation Campaign, Chapter forty. I am now estranged from not only those who practice medicine inside that system, but from science in general, at least as it's come to
be known. I no longer know who and what to trust within the system, and have now chosen to believe nothing that cannot be confirmed by numerous objective data sources using an assessment of the totality of evidence, and not the curated, premeditated conclusions found in high impact medical journal studies. To say it is a sad state of affairs is the understatement of my life. To realize that this state of medical science has existed for decades is both humbling
and terrifying. How many people have I hurt using medicines built on lies. In my career, my consolation is that oftentimes it takes great destruction to realize where weakness lies. After a natural disaster leaves a community in ruins, you can bet the rebuilt structures will be engineered to withstand the next one. At least I know what I'm dealing with now, because only good things can come from that knowledge.
In one film depiction of Pearl Harbor, the attacks planner, Japanese Admiral Yavamoto declares, I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve. Yes, I am awake, and I am filled with a terrible, immense, galvanizing resolve. And I thought that there was a brilliant commentary.
It is.
It is, unfortunately not what contained what I was, what I was heading for, but it was worth it was worth inserting. You mentioned you mentioned climate Somewhere in that vicinity of what I read. You wrote that you don't believe things, et cetera. And you now don't know that you believe what they're saying about climate change. Basically, that's what you said. You haven't had time to study it,
but you hope you will. Climate change was where I started at least twenty five years ago, and I've been I've been warring with the powers that ever since because it's a scam, just like just like so many other things. It's a real scam. And I've done multiple multiple interviews with people over the years on it. But climate is is not controlled by two?
Can I say that?
Since I wrote that book, which is already I don't know, maybe two three years ago, I haven't spent a lot of time in climate And I'll tell you why, because what makes an expert is pattern recognition. And all the hallmarks of the disinformation campaign around ivermectin are present with man made CO two causing global warming. Now, every single thumbprint, fingerprint of the disinformation against avernmactin is there with global
warmer So I don't care. And I also saw a documentary which really kind of stirred me to my soul where and I can't remember what the documentary was called, but they interviewed lots of prominent climate scientists who described what happens to them when they try to present or write papers about their data showing that it's not about man made CO two.
Well that was a British That was a British documentary. Eh. And there were two of them, and I don't know whether it was the first one or the second, because I think they felt it a similar similar pattern in BOS. But I more recently interviewed the director of that, the man who put it together. Yeah, and.
No hearing them, they were they were basically describing what happened to my career. So like I identified their message resonated and I was like, you go fight that war. I'm fighting this war. But I realized that's a war of disinformation. This whole CO two thing is that, like you said, it's a scam, just like ivermectin is a horsety wormer.
It's a scam.
And and you know they lose grant funding, they can't do research. I mean, if you're doing inconvenient science to the narrative or to the consensus, your career drives up. So what you're left with are these fields of science which are Yeah, there's consens because they get rid of all the dissidents, they star of the dissonance to death or the excommunicate them, so all you get is parrot heads.
Correct. Yes, And I was going to say that I recognize what you said about about the link between the two. The thing that intrigued me was I worked in reverse and climate change scamming trained me up for being very suspicious at the beginning and then developing it on everything to do with COVID nineteen yep. So on that note, I'm going to say that it's been one of the It's been an amazing how long hour and twenty minutes amazing And you're on holiday in Hawaii. You're going to
play golf this afternoon. I know that, and I am so grateful for the time that you've and the energy that you were put into the time that we have been talking so much so that I'm going to put you on the spot and say, would you rejoin us because there are other things, you know, a few months down the track.
Absolutely no, it's a pleasure. I'm happy to have joined you for sure.
Anyway, listen, my thanks to your very patient wife. I hope that the golf goes well.
It'll be good. It's beautiful weather here. Well, nice talking to man. Yeah, anytime reach out.
Likewise, if you feel this value in it, absolutely thank you, Pierre.
All right, lady, take care By.
Missus producer the mail room for a podcast two hundred lady four, Hi Layson, did you hear me two eight four?
I know, yeah, I heard.
I thought perfect, okay, good? Was that good? In anticipation of my next question, how are you good?
You've done two eight before? I can't believe it? And I am good? Thank you?
Excellent?
What a convoluted experience that was.
Why don't you prove it?
By Sir I Shall Allison says the recent podcast featuring Remish the Kur again is excellent. Wish we could hear him more often. His consistent wisdom, helpful worldview, and wide knowledge is needed to be heard by everyone. I wonder if the long march through the institutions and the ensuing success of that Marxist strategy would have turned out the same if such professors and lecturers as Ramesh had been
appointed in most of the universities of the West. Could we have had a class of young with similar wisdom and common sense. At the end, you introduce us to Stephen the medical doctor and read us a tantalizing fragment of his letter necessary information not commonly known, superb. I wonder if he would not be open to being interviewed by you, protecting anonymity in the process latent, and she asks where is one able to read the full submission which he wrote.
I'm not sure about that. I will chase it up. How's that I had to yesterday evening I had to explain to somebody who was roughly my age about the long march through the institutions. Never heard of it. I
reckon that good eighty percent of the population hasn't interesting. Now, this is from a lawyer hoping you might care to analyze and dismember Simon Wilson's piece in this week's Herald on Trump's first one hundred I don't need to point out the inaccuracies and distortions to you, but were you to do so publicly, would be doing us all a
great service. Secondly, just mentioning that's all that I have, I've had to make a firm decision not to listen any longer to Hoskin's American correspondent Richard Arnold's three days a week. Heaven help us. He's Australian, not American, and not sure who employs him. He's freelanced, by the way. Any reference to Trump, any references to Trump are slighting, snide and sneering. The illiteration is excusable. In describing this bigot bluntly, he's full of bs. Never credit for the
border or attempts to end the Ukrainian disaster. Hosking seems to defer to him the latter's grasp of political realities. Also suspect. This morning, he predicted that Dutton is going to get thrashed because the polls indicate that he probably will lose. But not to the extent Hoskin should Hosking not to that extent. Hoskin should realize by now that the Aussie Poles are very slewed or should they be skewed?
As of course, is their media just like ours? Sincerely, So I've got legal banking for that.
He's a lawyer.
Oh good, Yeah. Now the answer to your question, what I care to analyze and dismember Simon Wilson's piece? What Simon Wilson, hush.
Layton leyden Jin says So far this year, two first world Western countries, Canada and Australia, have submitted themselves to the same leftist government administrations which nearly destroyed them. When Joe Rogan asked Jordan Peterson, who of course is a Canadian, on how Canada might correct her course given the reelection of the Trudeau two point zero government under Carney. Jordan responded, well, people either correct course by waking up or by experiencing
severe pain. And it looks to me we've chosen the severe pain route, I guess, says Jen. Australians have also chosen the root of severe pain with the reelection of Albanesi's divisive and leftist Labor government. Australians will realize soon enough that they have just elected a government that will bring the full weight of the Progressive's war against themselves.
So I just want to leave Australians with a powerful exhortation from Robert Menzi's Australia's twelfth Prime Minister, and in quotes, Robert Menzie says, what may be before us, we do not know nor how long the journey, but this we do know that truth is our companion on that journey, that truth is with us in the battle, and that truth must win. I know that in spite of the emotions we are all feeling, you will show that Australia
is ready to see it through. May God, in his mercy and compassion, grant that the world may soon be delivered from this agony. And then Jin says, what is a speech that declared war against Nazi Germany in nineteen thirty nine got to do with the recent Australian election everything? As Nick Kata said, the Liberals have forgotten how to play politics. Dutton has lost as courage and Australia's freedom is at stake. The Liberal Party needs to gear up
for war. Dutton or whoever replaces him, needs to rediscover their courage and battle with truth by their side. Perhaps Mensi's rousing words might help.
I might cut that out and stick it on a war truth very good anyway, David, And this is the subject line I'm going to read the subject I never do that. Adirn rubbish the Bill of Rights in Act. In twenty twenty, Luxon wants to double down. Christopher Luckxlon now wants to promote MP Katherine Wedd's members bill seeking to ban social media access to children under sixteen years
of age. I wrote to Katherine Wedd pointing out that such legislation would be in clear breach of Section fourteen of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which states everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form. I have yet to receive a reply from Catherine wed but according to media reports, she denied her proposed legislation would breach the Bill of
Rights Act. I guess since Adirn and her government got away with the totally ignoring the Bill of Rights Act during COVID, Luxen and his National Party in Peace believe they can do the same. Luxeon is attempting to validate this proposed legislation on the premise that it mimics the Australian Online Safety Act. I'm surprised that Australians didn't push back against such draconian legislation, given that it does not conform to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Both Australia and New Zealand are signatories to this Convention, in which Article nineteen states everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, or in the form of art, or through any other means of his
choice close quote. Clearly Australian politicians have chosen to ignore an international convention which protected their citizens' civil rights, and that is no reason for MP Katherine wedd and Prime Minister Christopher Luxen to ignore the basic rights of New Zealanders as laid out but laid out in both the Convention and the Bill of Rights Act. No government should be mandating social media restrictions to children under sixteen. That
responsibility surely rests solely with parents. David, I could discuss this for the next thirty minutes. I reckon because there are arguments on both sides. I mean, kids aren't allowed to do this, that and the other, you know, like drive underage and drink underage and all of those things. So I guess that's there for their own protection, and it is drinking underage and driving underage, then so might be what they're looking at online. That's that's my best shot at it.
I think the big thing is, isn't it that despite your thoughts, one's thoughts about how it's a fantastic idea, how is it going to be managed and policed?
Answer on the aforementioned breakfast Hosts program, I might add by the way that there's no question in my mind the best broadcaster in the country, but nobody's without their faults. That you don't know until you try something, And there was reference by to the Australian situation too.
You know one hundred percent otherwise, and you know otherwise you'd have a very good reason to not try anything because it might fail. So what's the.
Point on that, Well, I've been there once or twice.
Well, the other thing is you and I have said before, Thank goodness, we have never brought children up, young children up in this environment because they would far rather sit on a phone than go outside and play with a ball.
Helllujah that we didn't.
Yeah, I was going to say, what do you mean, right, you're done? Yes?
Oh, now I've got two more and I'm going to I'm going to hold them over till next week because they both deserve a bit of time. So we'll put them on the side. Come back next week. So you've got a date, right, you're weird, See you next weekness, as producer, see you laden Now, I presume if you're still listening that it's because you're interested in this area, in this topic.
So too.
The commentary on the who's Draft Pandemic Agreement, co authored by David Bell, and it begins the first section background. I'm not going to read it all because it runs. I think it's some thirteen pages or not. Hang on seventeen pages. Will have the first page pretty much and
that will do. And it begins with background. The Draft Pandemic Agreement the PA has been under development for three years by delegates of one hundred and ninety four member states of the World Health Organization, the Health Agency of
the United Nations instituted after the Second World War. The WHO has been pushing to negotiate a Pandemic Treaty or accord to better prepare the world for pandemic preparedness, prevention, and response, in parallel with a new set of amendments to the two thousand and five National Health Regulations the IHR. The IHR amendments were pushed to a vote at the seventy seventh World Health Assembly the WHA in twenty twenty four, less than forty eight hours after negotiations on them finished.
This haste was in blatant violation of the who's own procedural requirements. In December of twenty one, the WHA instituted the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body the I INB to negotiate the PA, but this body failed to reach agreements for the twenty twenty four WHA. It was then mandated to finish its work as soon as possible and no later than a year. The WHO has tried to add to the sense of haste, with its Director General DG recently claiming that the next
pandemic could occur tomorrow. Drafts of the PA, along with the IHR amendments, seek to centralize management of pandemics and pandemic preparedness in the WHO, considerably expanding its role in public health. Now I realized that as I'm reading this, the PA and the IHR and the DG in the whhow and it will get confusing. But this is how
it's written for contexts. The PA and the IHR amendments are squarely aimed at naturally occurring outbreaks, being heavily oriented to surveillance for pathogens arising in particular from animal reservoirs in Braggett's spillovers. The recent COVID nineteen pandemic being almost certainly the result of a laboratory escape, therefore has little relevance to much of the proposed changes. The last time mortality acute outbreak was the Spanish flu over a century
ago in the pre antibiotic era. Now equally important is the competence of the wahow in potentially having an expanded role. The WAHO maintained for years that a lab leak was highly unlikely as a cause for COVID, including on its investigative panel people suspected of sharing responsibility for work leading to the probable leak. It then publicly insisted that there was no human to human transmission of the virus, as reports increased of spread in the population of Wuhan and
subsequently provided highly flawed and exaggerated case fatality rates. Despite extensive and early evidence of low harm from COVID nineteen to children, the WAHO was essentially silent as schools were closed for hundreds of millions of children, setting the scene for raised child marriage, child labour, and future intergenerational poverty. The who's Kovacs mass vaccination campaign then spent nearly ten ten billion dollars vaccinating people it knew were mostly already
immune and never at high risk. Fifty percent of sub Saharan populations were less than twenty years of age now to promote its Pandemic Preparedness Prevention Response PPPR agenda and the increased funding it is requesting to support this, The WHO and the wider global health industry looking to benefit have embarked on an unusual campaign to demonstrate of demonstrable
misrepresentation and confusion. Countries in the media have been provided with a series of reports shown to greatly exaggerate the available evidence and citations on the risk of pandemics occurring, exaggerate expected mortality, mostly based on medieval data, and exaggerate the expected return on investment. This has been frustrating, and while the PA calls for better adherence to honesty and evidence, it directs these recommendations to countries rather than the WHO itself.
Now to the last paragraph of the sixteen page epic, the PA the Pandemic Agreements requires sixty ratifications by member states and then in bracketts it says plus thirty days to enter into force. The PA Pandemic Agreement requires sixty ratifications by member states plus thirty days to enter into force, which is almost a third of the who's one hundred and ninety four members. This number is higher than the
ratifications commonly required for international treaties. It may reflect a disquiet among member states about the usefulness of the PA overall. There may therefore be a considerable period between the WHA vote where a two thirds its majority is likely to be found for an essentially motherhood and meaningless set of statements, and finding sufficient countries to confirm willingness to contribute to further expanding this draining international commercial and bureaucratic agenda. Summarizes
it well. It would be refreshing, though, if this could be recognized as the rather pointless and in the long term harmful exercise and removed from the agenda by a may WHA vote against it. So at this point of time, I believe the New Zealand is going to sign up with it, go for the row, which I think is a dumb thing to do. But don't take my word
for it. You listen to Pierre Corey, You've heard Ramish the Kur, David Bell on a number of occasions, people who may I suggest, maybe have a better grip on things than the elected some of those, some of those elected to office. Anyway, that takes us out for podcasts two hundred and eighty four. It has been very enjoyable. By the way, if you would like to write to us Laton at Newstalks AB dot co dot nz and Carolyn at NEWSTALKSB dot co dot nz. We shall return
for podcasts two hundred and eighty five very shortly. Until then, as always, thank you for listening and we'll talk soon.
Thank you for more from News Talks B.
Listen live on air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever you go with our podcast on iHeartRadio