The Leighton Smith PodcastLeighton Smith Podcast #257 - September 25th 2024 - Dr Paul Marik
Dr Paul Marik belongs to a group of physicians who have devoted their lives to their patients survival, and effectively been punished for it.
How can a man with a reputation as the “most published and influential clinician and researcher in critical care medicine in the United States" be forced from his career?
And we introduce a simple but useful addition to the podcast, after the Mailroom with Mrs Producer.
File your comments and complaints at Leighton@newstalkzb.co.nz
Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide.
Listen here on iHeartRadio
Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:
To subscribe via iTunes click here
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 us Now the Layton Smith Podcast powered by news talks it B.
Welcome to podcast two hundred and fifty seven for September twenty five, twenty twenty four. What is truth is not an original question, Neither has it been answered legitimately in a myriad of circumstances. In fact, the search for truth has been stymied more often than most people would ever realize, in all sorts of circumstances. But for it to continue in the most elite circles as often as it does is not almost criminal, but criminality at its most shameful. And so it is in the world of science and medicine. Essentially, it's a case of follow the money. The story of doctor Linus Pauling is fascinating. His book The Nature of the Chemical Bond was or is considered chemistry's most influential book of the century. In the three decades since it was published, it was cited sixteen thousand times. Linus Pauling is one of only five in history to win two Nobel Prizes, but Pauling was essentially sacked from his job at the California Institute of Technology. Doctor Paul Merrick has enjoyed his reputation as the most published and influential clinician researcher in critical care medicine in the United States, and for good reason. Doctor Merrick is a giant in the academic research world, with an h index of triple i, which placed him in the top percentile of the world's elite published positions. But doctor Merrick was forced out of his position and career. To add a further insult, he was pressured to resign his medical license. A less a man might have given up, but not doctor Merrick. Despite facing financial, personal and professional ruin, Marrek focused not on himself but on others. With laser like intensity dodtor. Merrick found his footing on what mattered most to him, saving the life of others. But it didn't stop there. The story of doctor Paul Merrick is fascinating. Following the events that I've in part described, doctor Merrick turned his attention to cancer, but first something came to light shortly before this podcast was put to bed, and it came in the form of an email from Jordan Williams from the Taxpayers Union. At it's headed, Andrew Costa has lost the plot. Political pundits across the country spat out their coffee this morning upon turning to The New Zealand Herald's front page splash that Andrew Costa speaks out on being dragged into political debate. Andrew Coster is either trolling the nation or has the self awareness of a paper clip. According to Jordan Williams, Costa has overseen an enormous pivot by the New Zealand Police toward politics and advocacy. Back in June, the Police Commissioner's alter ego one Andrew Caster was doing media rounds advocating for the government to change alcohol regulations. For someone now crying tears about being dragged into political debates, it is weird that he was literally leading Morning Report just a few months ago in advocating for minimum pricing of alcohol. At the time, the Taxpayers Union labeled Costa a constitutional barbarian in that he was blatantly ignoring the long held constitutional convention that police, especially leadership, enforced the law, not lobby to change it has given the middle finger to the conventions he was supposed to protect. No wonder the new government has not been able to express confidence in him. It is a sad reflection on New Zealand and our public sector that the only way the government has been able to move Costa along is to park him in a cushy job in another government department. His lag of judgment shows he should be nowhere near a leadership role. Cabinet ministers know that that have gone along with yet another fudge orchestrated by the Public Services Commission for those that want our public service to succeed. It is deeply depressing. Now I've sat on the sideline for goodness knows how long now and what's cost it in action? And I've wondered time and time again how does this man retain that position? What does he know that we don't, Layton Smith, there are essential fat nutrients that we need in our diets as the body cart manufacture them. These are Omega three and Omega six fatty acids. Equisine is a combination of fish oil and virgin evening primrose oil, a formula that provides an excellent source of Omega three and Omega six fatty acids in their naturally existing ratios. The Omega six from evening primrose oil assists the Omega three fish oil to be more effective. Equisine is a high quality fish oil supplement enriched with evening primrose oil that works synergistically for comprehensive health support. Source from the deep sea sardines, Anchovisa Magril provide essential Amiga three fatty acids in their purest form without any internal organs or toxins. Every batch is tested for its purity before it's allowed to be sold. Equisine supports cells to be flexible, so important to support healthy blood flow and overall cardiovascular health. Equisine can support mood, balance and mental clarity and focus in children, all the way to supporting stiff joints, mental focus, brain health and healthy eyes as we get older. Equas in as a premium, high grade fish and evening primrose oil to be taken in addition to a healthy diet and is only available from pharmacies and health stores. Always read the label and users directed, and if symptoms persist, see your healthcare professional. Farmer Broker Auckland. There is a book that came out in nineteen eighty two. It's called Betrayers of the Truth, Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. Nicholas Wade is a journalist with The New York Times. He was one of the co authors, and it's the sort of book that The New York Times, quite frankly these days, wouldn't want to be associated with. In my opinion, I want to quote you from the back. Betrays of the Truth is an important book for it challenges the conventional wisdom of objectivity in science. It is not an indictment of all scientists, but rather a thoughtful, well written, and well documented analysis of how fraud and self delusion can occur in a system which too often is claimed to be immune to such deviations. I commend it to all readers. Now, the author of that quote was doctor Robert H. Ebert, former dean Harvard Medical School. Now, with the reputation that Harvard has at the moment, which is pretty near the bottom of a pit that's unlikely to come out of anybody from Harvard, that to me gives the opinion more weight. Anyway, It's a very good book that you can get on the second hand book market still. Now, off the back of that Washington post published August fourteen, the American Board of Internal Medicine revoked the certifications of Pierre Corey and Paul Merrick, two physicians known for continuing to promote ibermectin and anti parasitic medicaid as a treatment for COVID long after the medical community founded to be ineffective. The two men co founded the Frontline COVID nineteen Critical Care Alliance, which experts say spread misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic. Now you know that my opinion on experts these days has changed dramatically from what it was a few years ago. I'm sick to death of the word experts. The aforementioned Dr Paul Merrick is in the country at the moment. He is doing a speaking tour with another doctor specifically and more people. And it's my great pleasure to welcome Dr Paul Merrick to the Latensmith podcast. Welcome to New Zealand. Also, by the way, I know you've only been here a couple of days.
Thank you kindly. It's an honor and apprivileged to be on the radio show with you.
Just referring to that last little little quote I read from the Washington Post about you losing your license. That's not quite accurate, I know, because your license, particularly the Virginia license, which was where you were mostly expired in twenty twenty two. But the fact that they're still chasing you, they're still hunting you down, not just you, not just per Cory, but probably a countless number of, shall we say, most proficient doctors in America are the subject of a similar activity. What do you say to that, now.
Yeah, so you're absolutely right that they revoked our board certification because we were accused of spreading misinformation and we are misinformationists and the reality is we just try to tell the truth. And science is not finite, it's not decided. It's an ongoing process, and you should be able to have a dialogue, free dialogue. And once once you sensor science, you decapitate science. And so you absolutely correct, they're going after peer and myself. And you may not know this, but I wrote a book called a Cancer Care Repurpose Drugs for the Treatment of Cancer, and the day before I actually came to New Zealand, the book was banned by Amazon. So Amazon was selling the book. They had been selling it for over a year, and then I got an email saying that you know, the information that I was providing was not truthful, was misleading, and that they banning my book and that I'm being banned for life. And all I was doing really was quoting peer reviewed literature as long as if I was making this stuff up. You know, the book has over eight hundred and sixty peer reviewed references and everything is peer reviewed, so there isn't assault if you go against the narrative, if you if you dissent in any way, it's what they do, whoever that they is. And it's very disturbing because you know, we should be able to in the same way as we're having a conversation. Now we may not agree with each other, but at least we can have a professional, courteous discussion, and that's what science and what life is about. And they don't like that.
Now, is it possible that you can appeal against them?
So we are yes. I mean, I think many people are outraged because it's completely unprecedented in in publishing history, because there are books that they sell that are for you know, for more for far less scientific, that provide information which is not truly accurate, and they being sold by Amazon. So we feel that they're specifically targeting me and targeting the book because you know, we strongly challenge, very strongly challenged the status quo, and that's what they don't like, particularly the financial implications. So in the US, cancer care is a two hundred billion plus industry, and so we are providing, you know, alternatives which can be used adjunctively or independently to promote people's health, to prevent cancer, and as adjunctive therapy to treat cancer. And obviously this goes against the narrative and it goes against mainstream medicine.
You know, I have just checked with Amazon Australia because I've had a previous experience where the book was no longer available in America, but I could get it from Amazon Australia. What I've got is currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock. So there's the answer. I would like to arrange with you somehow that I get a copy of that.
Yeah, so obviously the book's no longer available, and so the email they sent me made it quite clear that the book has discontinued. My accounts discontinued, and I've been discontinued. So the book you can't get from Amazon. We obviously are working out alternatives, but I can most certainly send you a PDF of the book for you to read.
That would be very useful. Now, I did know that you'd published that book, because I've done a little bit of a little bit of background. But what I don't understand is how they can justify the comments that they made to you based on the statistics that you produced and the effect that it had on patients at East Virginia Medical School where you were in those early days. What has followed on from that, sorry, after you left EVMS, what has followed on as far as that hospital is concerned.
Yes, that's a good question that they that continued along their merry way as if I was never there. So, I mean, the way this all started, if you remember, is in March of twenty twenty, the NIH the CDC, the who said, you know, there's no specific treatment for COVID, you just stay at home until you got blue. And any physician will tell you that's completely ridiculous. A physician is not going to just watch a secrepation and do nothing. So that's what was the impetus for, you know, doctor Corey and myself and some other colleagues to put together the FLCCC and the protocols, and so that's what we did, and it was based on the best available science. You know, we looked, we understood the disease, we understood the science, and we basically put together a protocol. You know, initially we recommended corticos steroids, and we were severely reprimanded. People said it was unethical to use the cordico steroids for a viral illness. But lo and behold, six months later, the recovery study came out showing that cudico steroids were life saving. We used anti coagulants happened, which was subsolutely proven to be correct. And then obviously we realized that the best way to control the pandemic was early treatment. And I think that remains as valid today as it was then. Is there's no disease that benefits from waiting until the patient progresses to the point they need to go to a hospital. It's an absurdity. So we put together an early treatment protocol. And as it so happens, there are twenty or twenty five pharmaceutical or nutraceutical drugs that have been shown to be highly effective for the early treatment of COVID, including hydroxychloroquin and overmectin. So that's how we got into this. But you know, the hospital I was that basically much like Amazon banned me, they banned my protocol which was highly successful. You know, we looked at my data versus other clinicians data, and the data suggested we could reduce the risk of hospital death by at least fifty percent. But that was inconvenient because I was not using the WHO or H protocols. So you know, what I've come to discover is that this is not about doing what's best for the patient. This is not about optimizing patient outcome. This is not about helping people. This is about conplex of interest, financial interests, and power plays.
Can you recall off the top of your head what your results were when you first were active with hospital patients.
Yeah, so you know, it's been debated and Corey and myself were actually accused of false, falsifying data, and scientific misconduct because we published the data. So we know that the hospital mortality from COVID was around twenty percent, we published data showing that it was in our hands eight percent, and that eight percent was data I received from the chief medical officer. He personally gave me the data and told me that it was about eight percent, and that's what we published in our papers. So that's a significant reduction. What they then did after the fact is accused us of scientific misconduct because they were able to show that with time the mortality went up to about ten percent. And obviously if you followed patients for long enough, some of them will die. But we looked at twenty eight day mortality, and so based on the complaints of the hospital and the hospital system, the journal retracted and removed the paper, accusing us of scientific misconduct. And so even if one takes a conservative reduction, they claimed it was ten percent. We know the hospital mortality was about twenty percent. So at least we were able to show that there was at least a of the fifty percent reduction in the risk of death. But that was very inconvenient for them.
Indeed, after the pandemic struck, doctor Merrick wrote to the WHO, doctor Fauci, the head of the NIH, the head of New York City's Department of Health, and the health minister in Lombardy in Italy about his new repurpose drug COVID protocol pre ivermectin, involving vitamin C cursoritin, zinc, and melatonin. He explained that lives could be saved by offering this to patients immediately. Doctor Merrick wrote in his letter, doctor Fauci and others are promoting the idea of performing randomized control tests. I believe that is unethical. I believe it's unethical to do such trials. How can you offer patients a placebo when testing a drug that you believe may have clinical efficacy. Every patient needs to get the best treatment that we can offer. We could expect no less from our loved ones. Furthermore, once these trials are eventually completed, we will all be dead or the pandemic will be over. This does not mean that we should not be studying the impact of these interventions. Detailed observational studies can provide useful information. What did you get back from the expert, doctor Plci? Yeah?
So please you quoted that because I had forgotten that letter. We had sent that same letter to hundreds of people, you know, healthcare administrators, heads of state, the who, and we did not get a single response, not a single response. And you know, obviously I'm pretty impressed with what we wrote that because it holds the same position then as it does now. The idea of doing a randomized study when you actually have an effective therapy goes against the whole hypocratic principle. And so you know, for example, you know, we developed a protocol for using vitamin C for sepsis, and we consider doing a randomized study, but my nurses refused because they could with their own eyes, they could see how effective vitamins was for treating early sepsis, and they said, it's unethical. How can you randomize a patient to get placebo when you know the drug you're giving is effective. And that's essentially what they were trying to do, is that, as I said, as a clinician, you give the patient your your only interest is the patient in front of you, and you have to do what you think is in the patient's best interests, and you know, to randomize them to placebo is completely unethical. And you're right at the beginning, we were convinced that, you know, and the data has borne out that for certain vitamin C, zinc, and vitamin D are really highly effective in preventing and treating COVID. You know, instead of you know, if if the health agencies were really concerned about the health of the elderly people in elderly homes, probably the most important intervention would have been just to give the vitamin D, just because we know vitamin D has such potent immunological properties, and we know if you have a good vitamin D level, your chances of dying or getting ready sick for COVID already close to zero. So what they should have just done, so cheap, so effective, is just given these people vitamin D. But again it went against the consensus, and nobody makes money. You know, vitamin D is a over the counter generic drug. It's exceedingly cheap that one makes money from describing vitamin D. And there's no question in my mind if we had gone on a campaign of promoting vitamin D, the mortality from COVID would have been significantly less.
What about vitamin C? I would have thought that vitamin C would have been at the forefront of the medical professions interest.
Yeah, so, you know what people don't recognize is that there are only two species on this planet that don't make vitamin C when you stressed. So humans and guinea pigs are the only species that don't make vitamin C?
Are they one and the same human beings?
And yeah, sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference between a guinea pig and a human and that's a good one. But you know, just from a genetic and evolutionary point of view, we know humans just don't make vitamin C when they stressed, and vitamin C is more of a stress hormone than it is a vitamin and plays a really important role in the stress response. So it doesn't really matter what the stress is. It could be psychological stress, it could be psychiatric stress. It could be stressed because you writing exams that you you need to produce vitamin C. And obviously if you're having surgery or have had trauma, you can't produce vitamin C. Vitamin C is really important and so that's why, you know, we would suggest any you know, if you're healthy and you eat a regular diet, you should get enough vitamin C. But if you stress, if you're under a stress situation, most definitely you should supplement with vitamin C.
I'll ask you a question. Well, I've got a couple of questions. Actually they fit together. What's the greatest challenge threat or problem that confronts science medical science in particular, as that's what we're talking about. Can I make a suggestion that it's politics.
Yeah, so you ask a really good question, and it's really unfortunate. Unfortunately science has been co opted by other forces politics, finance, power, and so you know, just just the fact that we're being censored is really a significant attraction of what science should be. You know, we don't have to agree. Science is evolving, it changes. I mean we know that, you know, people did blood letting and leaches and all kinds of therapies based on what they at that time, you know, thought was the best therapy. But science progresses, it's evolving, and so we need to be able to have differences of opinion, We need to explore different options. And certainly, once politics gets intertwined in science, it can only pervert science.
So my other question is your opinion of Scientific American.
You mean the journal Scientific Americans. So you know, I can look at my life at pre COVID and post COVID, you know, BCAC, and I can say that BC I used to believe almost everything that came from the medical journals New England Journal Lands at Scientific America, because that's what we were led to believe. These people have no vested interests, there's no conflict of interest, and that the science is true. I've subsequently discovered that at least eighty five, maybe ninety percent of published papers of fraudulent, deceptive, dishonest. And that's very, very disturbing, because if you can't trust these organizations and these journals, who can you trust? And so I think people have to, you know, general public, but particularly doctors and scientists have to be scrupulous in reviewing papers and understanding that there may be significant amount of rule that has been perpetuated.
The reason I asked you that is because less than an hour ago I got an email that Scientific American has endorsed Kamala Harris. Now, the reason for that, or the reasons for that, are fairly obvious. It appears to me that Scientific American has deserted its platform and is now engaged in a shall we say, a campaign, a war, call it whatever you like, along with other experts, and it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit the role any longer of one to be trusted. The editorial drew sharp contrast between Harris and Donald Trump, who they described as one who quote endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, prefer instead nonsensical conspiracy theories. Now, when I read that, I thought immediately of hydroxychloroquine. I also expressed concern over Trump's dangerous and disasters record, and particularly his handling of public health during the COVID nineteen pandemic and his rollback of environmental protections. If you're interested, a couple of comments from other people, one being doctor Jordan Peterson an utterly predictable and worse boring revelation from the pathetic and self destructive woke mob that captured the magazine that captured the journal and doctor Gad sad authoritarian leftist partisanship has hijacked everything academia, science, journalism, medicine, business, law, entertainment, culture, justice system, etc. So he's an evolutionary behavior scientist for anyone who doesn't know. So, I've had no faith in those magazines for some time. Now there's even less reason to have any sort of faith in them.
Yeah, So I wasn't aware of this development later, No, it just happened.
It's just happened. That's why I thought i'd break the news to you.
Yeah, I think it's shocking. I think it's highly disturbing. There's no question of doubt that medical journals and medical publications should be completely nonpartisan. They should not be involved in political dabbling and in quoting or misquoting politicians. Science is not political. It doesn't matter if you left or right. Was interested is the scientific truth. And once journals start dabbling in politics, we go down a very dark road.
Which we have traveled in this country. And of course you're aware of it with the previous prime minister and we were one of the shall we say, worst affected countries in the world over matters of lockdown.
Yeah, so you know what you know, as I said before, we either dividom my life BC and AC and unfortunately, and I don't think many people appreciate the extent of the lines that we were told. And so the absurdity is that doctor Correa myself are quote it has been misinformationist, but we're in fact telling the truth. And when you actually look at the truth everything they told us, like everything was a lie and it was predetermined, you can say, you know, where did the virus come from? This wasn't from nature. You can look at the use of masks we know that there was a complete and out of failure. It's been well established. But COVID spreads by aerosol, not by droplets spread, and this has been well defined scientifically. We knew this in twenty twenty. And if you reckon that it's spread by aerosols, then it makes masks completely ineffective, it makes social distancing ineffective, it makes lockdowns completely ineffective. So what they did was they instituted, were not just instituted mandated policies that were not based on good science. And as we know, the consequences have been enormous, particularly in places like Australia and New Zealand and Canada, where you know, these draconian measures were enforced with almost military like activity.
I want to make mention in passing of doctor Linus Pauling, and I quote from an artic written by justice not legal justice, justice Jus t Us Hope m D. He refers to the IV Vitamin C protocol that you have. How would you put it just not discovered? What would you say?
Yeah, we reinvented it, you know, I mean, so it's very unusual for someone to invent something is often just history repeating itself so you know, we put this protocol together based on you know, his work as well as other people's work, and you know, we show to be highly effective.
So Dr Pauling, well, I'll just back up a little bit referring to you. Doctor Marrek has enjoyed his reputation as the most published and influential clinician researcher in critical care medicine in the United States quote unquote, and for good reason. Doctor Marek is a giant in the academic research world, with an H index of one to eleven. What is an H index?
Yeah, so an H index is a balance between the number of papers you've published and the number of times the papers have been quoted. Because it's all very well writing a paper, but if people ignore the paper and you know, don't quote the paper, then it's it means it's had a low impact. So the H index is a blend of number of publications and the number of times it's been quoted. Most noble laureates have an H index of about forty to fifty. So you know, an H index of over one hundred year signifies pretty significant clinical and research productivity.
So your H index of one hundred and eleven which placed him in the top percentile of the world's elite published physitions. This stunned me as I as I read it. After the way that you've been dealt with. His ivy vitamin C protocol known as HAT HAT guarded massive attention with more than eleven hundred anecdotes from physicians around the world world noting similar almost miraculous results from their septic shock patients, and then mentions your hospital recorded a drop in the death rate of of your sepsis patients from twenty two percent to six percent over the year after you began using that vitamin C protocol. Now getting back to Linus Pauling, he also was utilizing the same methodology. He was afflicted with Bright's disease, a kidney condition at age forty. He found an unorthodox but effective way to treat himself using three grams per day of vitamin C. However, this use of repurposed vitamins threatened the status quo and was vehemently denounced as quackery. Doctor Merrick has found himself similarly attacked by various moneyed interests. But the point is that Linus Pauling kept himself alive for some considerable time on that exact methodology.
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, he wasn't a physician. You know, he was a basic scientist and a physicist, but he understood the astonishing properties of vitamin C and he obviously treated himself with vitamin C. And so the point is that it's a vitamin C is a particularly safe a drug or mineral or supplement. It's almost impossible to harm somebody with vitamin C. So you know, you compare that with many of the common drugs that we use that have a terrible side effect profile. So you know, vitamin C is what the big farmer in the industrial complex despises, something which is cheap, something which is safe, which has a very favorable side effect profile, and can be highly effective. It's exactly the kind of pharmaceutical intervention they despise.
So just before we move on, I know that you told this story, well I'm sure that you have told this story so often, but I would like you to repeat it, just briefly or otherwise as you want. When you were in hospital, when you were working in hospital and you developed this protocol, the seventy three year old woman who came in on death's or just relate that experience for us.
Yeah, and I remember it to this day quite well, of course. So this was a lady in her seventies who had severe, overwhelming accepsis and as if I recall, it was from the billary tract and she was in established septic shock. Her heart was not functioning, she needed drugs to support her blood pressure, she need a ventilator to support her lungs, she needed that dialysis machine to control kidney failure. And so I knew this woman was dying from a potentially treatable disease. So, you know, I scratched my head and I thought, you know, what can I do? You know, which is what most physicians would do. You know, you just you got to scratch the barrel. And I was aware of a physician at the University of Virginia who had been using vitamin C and I looked up the dose that he had used, and I thought, you know what, let me try this. What what do I have to lose? So I asked the pharmacists did they have ivy vitamin C? And indeed they did, so I said, well, you know, could we please give this the ivy vitamin C to this patient? You know, she's dying, and I think it can help her. Obviously, I had no idea what the outcome would be, you know, I had expected that when I went home, the poor lady would have passed on, and I was stunned. To say I was stunned would be an understatement. The next morning she was sitting up in bed, awake, alert and responsive, and it was. It was truly one of the most astonishing things that I had seen. And the nurses, of course were obviously overwhelmed with happiness and pleasure because they had seen the miracle of vitamin C in action. And so obviously once you see something, you say, well it was it just a fluck? Was she going to get better? Or is there is this a valid intervention? So we repeated it, and each time we saw the same thing, and so we knew that this was a real thing. What we did, though, which is really important, is that we treated patients early. So these are patients who came into the ICU were really sick and they were dying the same way is you know, as I said, you don't wait for patients to get sicker, And we gave the vitamin C immediately upfront, and so there have been a number of randomized trials which have failed to replicate what we did, including a study out of Australia. But what they did in this particular study is they waited at least twenty four hours after the patient had been admitted to hospital before they had given the vita C, which makes absolutely no sense because if you're at risk of dying, you want to intervene early. As I said before, there's no disease that benefits from a delay in initiating therapy. But this was done, we think, by design, to try and discredit vitamin C. And after that, after that, you know, we continue to use vitamin C. And we put together a observational study because my nurses thought it unethical to do a randomized study. You know, when you know something is effective, because the nurses could see it, risk of patients getting kidney failure went down, the use of the analysis machines went down, the length of stay in the ICU went down. So we kept on doing this and we you know, we collected forty eight patients and we we published the data as an observational study. We used a retrospective control group and it did, you know, it did get people's attention, and we know from speaking to clinicians that the response that we saw was very similar to what they saw. But again, there were a number of studies that were designed which we think we're designed to fail, in which the vitamin C was given very late, and you know in that situation it's likely to be less effective. And I think today you know there's still a lot of interesting vitamin C. Although you know the powers that we think it's an effective therapy. It's safe, which is really important. So at worst, what you know, when where patients called me, I said, well, you know what, what do you have to lose? All that can happen is you can say of the patient's life, it's exceedingly safe and it's cheap. But that goes against you know, what the pharmaceutical industrial complex is trying to push.
You came from South Africa and I think ninety five ninety two.
If I remember I left just before a part eight fell apart.
Well, your memory on that date would be better than mine, of course, So you moved in ninety two, you discovered success and recognition, and now you find yourself in a position of unemployment in what is your career? What you'd prefer to be doing. How are you well? First of all, do you have any regrets on moving to America after after what's happened? And how are you now making a living?
Yeah, so you asked some good questions. So, you know, I thought the move to the US was a good move. It gave me enormous opportunities. I could achieve what I wanted achieve professionally. But obviously I had no idea what was in store for me. You know, I thought, if you were a scientist and you tell the truth, that people value those characteristics, but certainly not so obviously, you know, telling the truth. And with COVID, I lost my job, I lost my license, I lost my hospital privileges. As you said, the American Board of Internal Medicine decertified me. So basically the system had made me unemployable, which is, you know, which is a pity. But you know what, I.
Don't sound angry.
You know what I've I missed clinical medicine because that's what I was. I was a South African doctor who's got enormous enjoyment and satisfaction from treating patients, you know, direct patient contact, which I think is so important. But I've had to kind of reinvent myself. Obviously, financially, I've taken a big hit, But you know what, money doesn't buy everything in this world. And so I've found a new niche of trying to tell the truth as it goes to cancer, as it goes to diabetes, as it goes to depression, as it goes to most chronic diseases, because basically, the healthcare system in the US anyway, and I would assume in most Western countries, is a system based on chronic disease. It's a system which promotes sickness, it promotes the use of medications. It's a sickness system rather than a healthcare system. And so for many of the diseases I've mentioned, you know, what they want to do is get you hooked on medication for life. And I give you as an example. I was a type two diabetic and I thought I would have type two diabetes for the rest of my life and I would be dependent on, you know, expensive pharmaceutical products. But just adopting a number of lifestyle changes which are not very difficult, I was able to cure myself of diabetes. And you know, you can say the same thing about metabolic syndrome, depression, many autoimmune diseases that you know, patients can empower themselves to take control, not to trust the healthcare system. Terrible thing that I'm saying, and I say this with a broken heart, that the healthcare system is not a healthcare system. It's a disease system that's designed to keep you as sick as you can for as long as they can, and for them to make as much money as they can. And so I have evolved, and so I have, you know, help people, and I think in this role maybe I've reached more people than I did before.
And I hope you continue to do so. Guy Hatchett is an Englishman who book up residents in New Zealand some considerable time back. He is not a doctor, but he's a PhD in an associated area. He published something on and he publishes frequently and he's finding a battle. But he published something over this last weekend to do with New Zealand Emergency Department data wire a freedom of information request to the Health Department or Health New Zealand. They were asked for the number of people under the age of forty presenting to emergency departments throughout New Zealand hospitals with chest pain or heart issues by year, And here are some quick figures twenty nineteen, twenty two hundred and nineteen, twenty twenty four, four hundred and six, twenty one, thirteen thousand and sixty three, twenty two, twenty one thousand, four hundred and sixteen in twenty three, last year twenty thousand and five, and so far this year, not so far to June this year, halfway through the year it was fourteen thousand, six hundred and thirty nine. How do those figures affect you? What are your thoughts?
Yeah, so, I think those figures are alarming and any health care administrator or any healthcare anyone involved in healthcare should be shocked by those data because obviously there's something that's happened in our community that's affecting the health of young people and their cardiovascular health. And you know, it's not difficult to know what that intervention is. It certainly is not climate change. Climate change has not caused all of these heart attacks and chest pains. There is something that happened in twenty one, twenty two, twenty three, and you know, I'll let you guess or your listeners guess what it was, but that intervention has directly increased the risk of cardiovascular disease, chest pain, and sudden death. And it's alarming. And so if healthcare administrators or legislators were really interested in the healthcare of the community, they would investigate this in significant depth and to try and figure out which, we know, what the cause is, the you know what has happened, and what measures can be taken to protect these poor people from further quodiovascular events.
I'll get your opinion. Also on his last short paragraph, it is so far past time to recognize past mRNA COVID vaccine harm and the growing dangers ahead, especially as multiple mRNA vaccines are under development and soon to be offered to the public. Our government is planning to deregulate biotechnology, rushing like a must to the flame. This has to stop now, And you would.
Say, yeah, I absolutely agree. I mean so obviously, what I was saying is that there's very good data that these jabs, these amorina genetic therapy jabs are directly responsible for the massive increase in a sudden deaths in cardiovascular events through multiple different pathways. The spike protein is probably the most toxic protein known to the human body. It does all kinds of really bad things. A recent paper in Nature, which is a really reputable journal, so you know, we're going back to the journals. Can you trust it? But it actually showed that spike protein directly binds to fibrin, which is a clotting protein and activates clotting. So you know that wasn't censored up until now. And so we know that spike protein causes inflammation of the lining of the blood vessels, it causes inflammation in krdiac blood vessels, it causes damage to the heart. So this is a this is a well documented in the literature observation, and so it puts the community at increased risk of sudden cardiac deaths. And we know there's been an explosion of sudden deaths in young people, which is very, very troubling.
How many speeches have you given so far? Just the one?
So in New Zealand, we had an event in christ Church. I've given you one lecture there, and we have an upcoming event in Auckland and I'm going to repeat the same lecture. But you know, I've done many zoom conferences on this topic, and you know I will continue to tell the truth. But you know, if people want to disagree, then that's fine. We can have a civil conversation and discuss the science, but you can't obliterate what you don't want to see.
Any doctors turn up for your christ Church speech, you know.
Yeah, So surprisingly, their attendance was very good. You know, I would say fifty percent will maybe lay people, fifty percent were physicians. And I think, you know, it's a delight to speak to these people because you feel that you are you're amongst your brothers and sisters, that you like minded people, and you can talk to each other. And it was very enlightening. I think it was enlightening for me, but for the audience as well. And that's what we need more of, is let's have open dialogue, Let's talk to each other. Let's be civil to each other, rather than all these censorship and recriminations and tapers being withdrawn and books being banned. I think that's heading in a really bad direction.
But it's hitting in that direction along with another a number of other causes. Shall we say, of those doctors who turned up for christ Church, did any challenge you? Seriously?
No, I can't think of this thing. You know, we had many you know, after the lecture, I spoke to many physicians and none of them could present, you know, data which discredited what I had to say. So I think that they were in full agreement because if you look at the data they even the data that's published, it's overwhelming. It's you know, it's very difficult to dispute the obvious. For example, I can give you quote one study from the Cleveland Clinic. The Cleveland Clinic is regarded as one of the most prestigious medical institutions in the world, and basically what they showed is the more the increasing number of times you get jabbed, So those patients who received the most number of vaccinations had the increased risk of getting COVID. So rather than the jab protecting you, it seemed that the more times that they received the vaccine, the more times, the greater their risk of getting COVID, so that the risk of COVID increased with the number of jabs. I mean, it's very compelling data.
I want I want to raise another subject just before we conclude, and just just get your opinion. So I asked this as an innocent question, do you have an opinion on statins.
So that's a really interesting question. As I say, you know, I have changed, as is my understanding. I used to take a statin until they became aware of the staaten hoax. It's a complete and ut a hoax that these drugs have significant side effects. In fact, you know, what they do is interfere with cholesterol synthesis, and the probably the most important organ that depends on cholesterol is the brain. The brand has a high cholesterol content, and there's very good data showing that statins increase your risk of dementia. We know statins increase the risk of liver disease, statins increase the risk of muscle disease, but do they protect And the data suggests that if for primary prophylaxis, the use of statins has negligible impact, So it increases the risk of side effects with very little positive benefit. There may be certain subgroups of patients that may benefit from a statin for a short time limited trial months, but these are not drugs that should be given lifelong. It just so happens that the statin but torvas staaten is the most commonly prescribed drug in the United States of America. That's this stranglehold Big Farmat has on the medical system. We used to think that statan's were effective in preventing heart disease, but we've now discovered that the converse is true.
When you say where would where would one find that information confirmation?
Yeah, there's actually a few books that have been written called the Staten Hoax, which I would suggest people read. You know, obviously, the medical literature, the major medical journals aren't going to promote this idea, but there have been meta analyses that have been done published in peer review journals which actually show that the mortality benefit of of primary profile acces with statins is close to zero, close to zero. And we do know that statin's increase, as I said, the isk of dementia, diabetes, lever disease, muscle disease. So, you know, the truth ready is important.
But the eternal question is what is truth? That doesn't require an answer?
Yeah, so that's something. Yeah, I mean you ask a really good question what is the truth? And I think, you know, I think people need to question everything they told to, you know, to verify its source and to verify this scientific rigorousness and just to not you know, we sew brainwashed we need to start thinking critically and start using our brain rather than believing everything we told, and then hopefully we will come to some kind of a truth.
Indeed, so finally, Robert Malone, are you friends with him?
I know Robert quite well. We equaint I would say we acquaintances rather than good friends.
Sometimes that's better. He published, and by the way, I've got I have to say this. I can't accept that he writes everything himself, or be it accept that he agrees with it and may even commission it. But he published a fifty seven page because I got it here. I printed it a great expense to myself. He published only a few weeks ago, Packed for the Future, the Socialist Manifesto fifty seven pages, and it begins September twenty twenty four. The United Nations will be meeting in New York to discuss and vote on three new treaties. The first to be discussed is called the Pact for Future. I'm not going to insult you all by stating that or what I think about this document without having presented the treaty for all of you to pursue. Keep in mind that this is just one of three treaties or packs up for votes and signing at the UN end of September. That's by way of introduction to what I've received again. Only this morning, the UN just adopted the Pact for the Future, which lays the foundation for a new global order. That's what it says, a new global order. You have any comment to make on the UN, the who and where they're headed.
I think it's terrifying, and I think we should be do whatever we can to speak to people in government, speak of people in power, Speak to our legislators that the WH and the UN need to take their fingers out of our lives, you know, that they should not be dictating how we live, where we love, what we eat. And I think this one power government is a very dangerous slippery slope and we should be outraged.
And yet it hardly gets any mention, any discussion in the mainstream media. It is something that seems to be or seems to fit in with the general acceptance of what is yet to come.
Yeah. Absolutely, I think it's imperative that more people are aware of where the U, N and w H is going, and we need to do whatever we can to prevent. You know, we need to restore democracy we need to restore human dignity, we need to restore you know, human individuality, and we're going down a terrible slippery slope.
Well you said, we not just on a pass. You're well on the on the way to shall I say, the nation that is to be admired and you are to be congratulated. Thank you so much for the time you've given. Glad you made it to New Zealand, and I hope the rest of your journey and your speeches are successful.
Well, thank you kindly. It's been a delight speaking with you and I've really enjoyed it, and so thank you kindly.
My pleasure, and I speak on behalf of some considerable thousands of people.
Thank you so much, Paul, thank you, my friend.
All Right, two hundred and fifty seven is the podcast number, missus producer. Here we are Layton. Hello, So from James once again Professor Jeffreysax with a clear exposition of the current state of the world, together with some very relevant and relatively recent economic history. We hope that you can find the time to listen because it helps to understand the dangerous debarcles in progress. It seems almost everywhere we can only hope that in the not two distant future, the US realizes the mess it's made of the last eighty years and has a sea change in its policy outlook. For one thing, the US dollar will soon no longer be capable of being weaponized, and for another, the US, if it's going to survive as the same democratic society that it has been, it must put its energies, all of them, into paying down its colossal debt and drastically overhauling its governance so that it is once more governed by elected officials instead of the faceless, unelect did suits currently heading the country toward economic and nuclear arm again, the world will be a very different place, peaceful and prosperous instead of featuring constant belligerents and ongoing financial crises. Once again, with all the best wishes and lots of love from us. In El Raetiro, Columbia.
Leighton Rod says, it's been a while since I tuned into your podcasts. Perhaps the relief of last October's election results swayed me to have a break thinking Labour's toxic ideology no longer had to be discussed on your show anymore, But there are many other toxic ideologies in this world to discuss, unfortunately, and one of them is Kamala Harris and whether she is a Marxist or something else. Your guest professor Michael Recton World was more of the view she was a globalist and a Marxist, though both positions can be interchangeable in my view, So the verdict might still be out on just what exactly is Kamala's ideology. But what is evident to me is Kamala Harris's disdain for the traditional family unit and America's Christian heritage, which are the backbones of American society. If Kamala wins the presidency, these two sacred values will be weakened even more. Maybe Kamala is just an empty head idealist who stands for everything other than America's traditional values.
That was from rod Ron. Certainly can't. I cannot agree with the last sentence apart from the airhead part from Paul, and this is producing this is you want to share this with me because it's so long. I'll read the first half and you can read the same. Okay, I think it might be worthy pre covid I considered myself, writes Paul, conservative realist with a more than passing interest in US politics and an admiration for what Trump managed to do to get himself elected in twenty sixteen. I also had a significant disdain for a deerm and the collective of incompetent I dealists who formed her government post COVID. My family considered me a conspiracy theorist. I, like Trump, called bs On the man made climate change hoax and was never COVID vaxed the rabbit hole trifector. When it comes to the current election cycle in the US, I listen with interest to you and your guests when comments are made around the outcome and some speculation whether there is a parallel between Adern and Harris personally, I don't see one as far as influencing the election result. A Dern never won that election. Bill English did, but the two comrades are definitely cut from the same cloth when it comes to being communist, progressive grifters, and economically illiterate. A Trump victory is imperative, but the deep state can't allow it. Trump knows too much from his first term for a second go round and is a legitimate threat to them. They know that he won't make the same mistake twice, will make that plural mistakes twice and the construct of a Trump cabinet. I await with anticipation Kennedy in charge of the CDCFDA is or the CIA, Gavin and Musk actively involved in a realignment. Hold on while I grab some popcorn. I do not believe the current nat can take it over there.
I don't believe the current mainstream polls. And think back to podcast two four nine with Patrick Basham. Oh, I don't believe the current mainstream poles and think back to podcast two four nine with Patrick Basham. Are you going to have them back for an update towards the end of October? By the way, what I see and what we're being told don't gell. Look at the visibly increased support Trump is receiving from the rank and file teamsters, the firemen, and predict police, border security, black Hispanic men, to name just a few voting blocks. The allegedly close poles don't make sense. In twenty sixteen, the Poles had Trump seventeen points behind in Wisconsin, and he won there. We may not see such a discrepancy example this time around, but equally, the legacy media outlets will not and cannot show Trump leading against Harris, as it would not reflect their efforts and narrative to turn her from the least popular VP ever a month ago into some sort of savior of mankind. Sadly, there are many who blindly believe the propaganda.
JD.
Vance said an Attacker Carlson interview this week that their own internal polling shows them winning. He would say that, and I believe him. The Trump groundswell is undeniable. However, I am very concerned that a Trump victory cannot be tolerated by those with everything to lose, and the assassination attempts will continue until they get it right. Finally, anyone who thinks that Harris wasn't fed the questions beforehand at the debate is delusional.
Yeah.
Compare her coherent rehearsed answers at the debate after weeks of preparation to her Oprah interview and other post debate friendly softball interviews resulting in nonsensical word salad answers. And you don't need to be Einstein to see it doesn't add up in my view, if Trump can make it to In my view, if Trump can make it to November the fifth, unscathed. He will be forty seven and a clear electoral college victory, as I believe the turnout for him will be too big to rig. I thoroughly enjoy your work each week, long Matte continue, Thank you so much, Paul, Well.
Very good, bit long, but very good. I thought there was a clever way to deal with myself.
Now.
As for Patrick Basham, if my memory serves me correctly, he will be on next week and he will be on wait for it, election day. Election day is a Wednesday our time, so on that day I anticipate the podcast could be a little late in coming out, but think about it, it usually goes out mid afternoon. Now in mid afternoon, it's around what time is it about eleven pm on the East coast, So it could all slide together very well, but her final details are yet to be sorted. I saw Carmela Harris and her running mate at a rally coming together on stage in what could only be called a political pantomime, and it was embarrassing to see, you think, I thought it couldn't get worse, but it did. When they spoke, they seemed to talk about themselves first in such a cringe worthy way, so much. They had trouble getting past it with any coherent thought. It was like watching a comedy show on TV where you guess whether the speaker is lying or not or just doesn't know what they're talking about. Now, when Carmala Harris's face lights up in an interview, you just know she's going to repeat one of her fables and throw in some fabrications as an extra good at that, Carmala Harris and her running mate can't seem to get their message across adequately of what's good for the country like Trump. Maybe the Democrats going woke might go broke. Oh, there's more and more people coming out of the woodwork on both sides of this. I have some references to pass on to you.
Shortly, latent Jin says, I believe you'll appreciate this short one minute talk TV UK video where consumer expert Adrian Mills gave one of the greatest arguments for why using cash helps you save money and it's sure and sure it holds its value compared to using cashless methods which banks profit from. In case you have trouble opening the video, here is the transcript. So this is what the consumer experts says. I'll tell you why it's so important that people use cash. For example, I have in front of me a good old fifty pound note. I owe you fifty pounds. I pay you. You go to the hairdresser, You pay your fifty pounds. The hairdresser goes to the cafe, pays the coffee shop owner fifty pounds. The cafe owner goes to the restaurant owner fifty pounds. The restaurant pays for the linen cleaning fifty pounds. The value of the fifty pounds remains fifty pounds. If, however, I pay you with a credit card straight away, I'm devaluing that fifty pounds because I am paying three percent on average interest to a bank or a society that gives me that card, which is the equivalent of one pound fifty. You then follow that through and everywhere you go, the hairdresser, the coffee shop, the restaurant. If you're paying the card, you're losing one pound fifty every time. So after thirty transactions with cash, you've still got fifty pounds in bad. If you used your credit card, the value is now five pounds because you've paid the bank forty five pounds in fees, and that's why the banks want to encourage you to go cashless. Don't allow it to happen. This is why, says Jin, we shouldn't allow banks or politicians to coerce us into becoming a cashless and CBDC society. Cash is king, cash is freedom. Thanks to your constant reminder Latent regarding the importance of having cash in hand, I've always had about two hundred dollars cash in my wallet just in case.
And I congratulate you on that too. And I think that at the very end of our discussion today, the good doctor gave us some thinking material. Well, like I say, right at the very end, he's he's very concerned about where things are heading. And these not alone, missus producer. I've got some two more, but they're so short.
You do short one and I was a short one.
Oh you okay? Right from Chris. Since education contributes to your podcast subject matter, you may be interested in Twin Oaks charter school, proposed to start next year in green Lane and Auckland. The main difference is the hybrid approach. You know how that works where parents are the teachers for two days a week and the classroom learning for the other three and then gives me some contact details. If I'm want to take it any further, it may well do. And from Jim, I'm looking forward to hearing your USA electoral discussion that no doubt you will have love all your broadcast. Jim, appreciate that. Thank you and you'll get it.
And later. From James, I've just listened to your fascinating interview with Michael recton World. This was the first I had heard about the ABC's whistleblower regarding the debate. I did a Google search on the topic, and surprise, surprise, despite lots of overseas coverage, I could not find any local reports on the matter, despite it being big news. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough, so I'll eat my hat if I'm wrong. Otherwise, it's just another reason to look for information and use from other sources and take what we see at six o'clock each night with a grain of salt.
That's from James, James, Thank you, missus, producer, thank you.
Thank you.
Until next week, Thanks Leighton, it will last week. In the Putting Together Podcast two fifty six, I made yet another comment on how much of interest there was that particular morning that I couldn't cover. Couple that with inquiries about various issues and what books i'd recommend, it occurred that I could and should share information more willingly. Protecting your sources has always been well important to varying degrees in the media, but it no longer matters so much. I came to the conclusion that information sharing is not any beneficial, but is necessary. Well, I've known that for a while, but haven't activated on it as much as I might have. Well, of course, being first with well being first, people like to be first, doesn't matter what it's in. Competition builds when somebody invents something, or says something, or writes something or whatever, and you lose track of who was responsible for it. But being first is not vital, but it helps. I decided that I would introduce a well, not a segment, but maybe it is. Maybe we'll call it that, in which I will share some sources of information, sources of opinion, fact whatever that I think will be of interest to well some, not everybody all at once, but some from week to week. And as it happens, the first email that I opened up this morning was from Jeffrey Tucker. This wasn't personal this is Jeffrey Tucker writing his column for the Epic Times. But the interesting thing to me was I believed that it was only last week that I read a letter from a listener, a very loyal one, i might add, who commented that Jeffrey Tucker and George Friedman were two people that had helped direct his understanding and appreciation of geopolitics and other matters of life. And what is the column in the Epic Times called from Jeffrey Tucker? Why is the age of information disappointing intriguing her? It must have been remarkable to be alive between eighteen eighty and nineteen ten. The explosion of technology, then called the practical arts was astonishing. In the course of this time, we saw the commercializer of steel that made possible huge bridges to transverse large bodies of water for the first time, and allow the building of skyscrapers that change cityscapes. And suddenly you could go anywhere and do anything. Then there's a whole list of things that wants a short list. But of things that he refers to, there was the advent of electricity to light up cities and homes. There was internal combustion that allowed for motor cars that change travel and the practice of farming. There was flight, which made not fleeing aeroplanes, which made the seemingly impossible possible. Communications changed first with the telegraph and then the telehne, which introduced the real first upgrade in information spread since the handwritten letter carried on horseback. And there was so much more, including indoor plumbing, the wide availability of books, the bringing of precision time into the home with commercial clocks and then watches, the recording and eventual broadcast of sale, and so much more. Now, the point that Jeffrey Tucker makes is a very important and that is that information doesn't mean wisdom that takes more input. But the important fact of this particular column this morning, I think is obvious. So every week as part of the podcast, I'll introduce you to some sources that I think are worthy of follow up entirely up to you, obviously, Let's begin with one of my favorites, of course, Victor Davis Hansen. In just a second. First, here is a headline over seven hundred deep status join Dick Cheney, Iran and IRS union in endorsing Harris in a surprise to No. One seven hundred and forty one high ranking national security officials have endorsed Kamala Harris's bid for the White House, with some suggesting that former President Trump has a scary authoritarian streak. Now that's only by way of introduction. I'm not going to read anymore, but let's get to let's get to a reaction to this from Victor Davis Hanson. Are so called experts and their silly group speak letters. One of the most prepasitorous recent trends has been the political use of supposed expert letters and declarations of support from so called authorities. These pretentious testimonies of purported professionalism are different from the usual inane candidate endorsements from celebrities and politicos. Instead, well, if you want to find out you you'll find it at am greatness dot com. Am greatness dot com are so called experts and their silly group speak letters. Published on the twenty third of September, well worthy of digesting then speaking of media and sharing information and getting it right, etc. There's an article ausored by Frank Mela m E.
L E.
Frank Mela via Real Clear Politics, Young America is right to reject traditional news. It's become a truism in the past few years that younger people get their news predominantly, if not entirely, from social media. Turns out it's true, but it may not be an information crisis as some of you would have thought. Of course, as an old time newspaper man, I was one of those who thought that the country was not being served well by this increasing dependency on unvettered news sources and the implied repudiation of traditional media. And I'll leave that one there too, Frank melay Mi E l E real clear politics. All you need to do, really is is search young America is right to reject traditional news. Frank Mila next, and just this concentrates mainly on aspects of the United States and the influence. And this is the important part as far as I'm concerned, the influence that America has. It is still the richest country in the world. It is the most influential country in the world when it chooses to be the moment they're lacking somewhat in a number of areas. The Dangers of Uncontrolled Immigration by Raphael Madagi B. A. R. D Aji brd Aji as of June seven, twenty twenty four, for the first time in the history of Spain, the prison population of young people born abroad exceeds that of young Spaniards in prison at a ratio of sixty to forty. If we include those born in Spain with Spanish nationality but to foreign parents, that ratio pockets to over seventy over thirty. Now, this is a six page article, the point being that it covers much more than you might expect, and there are lessons in it for every country on Earth, well every country that people want to move to in great numbers. The dangers of uncontrolled immigration a Spain and Europe are suffering from a far worse case than countries like New Zealand. But New Zealand has things to learn. We have things to learn from the experience of these other events in other countries. America and the Future of Globalism by Edward Ring, again from am Greatness. If globalization is the economic integration of nations in a world where technology has all but a raised once formidable barriers to long distance communication and transportation, globalism is its cultural and ideological counterpart. Globalism, like communism or neol liberalism, is beautiful. Is beautiful. You might walk there when described in these abstract terms and not rooted in the real world anyway. Again, it's a four page article, and again it's worthy of your reading. Stockman David who was involved first of all with the Reagan administration. Stockman, what the coming US election means for America's physical future. Now, why would I include that? Well, A, because it's interesting. Be because considering the US's importance in the world. It was in the financial world. It has an effect on the rest of the world, and that includes New Zealand of course. And these are things that I think we miss from time to time, the effect that something that happens in an important part of the world will have here you might you might fall into that category of missing the point, but some people do. And then finally, for this week, the un Machinery against Human Rights an article that runs eleven pages from the Brownstone Institute Brownstone dot org and co authored by our friend David Bell. And this is essential, I think for all of us to be aware of. I read everything that David Bell is responsible for. He's been on the podcast, as you would know, on three or four occasions, and he is a man of some considerable wisdom. He's Australian by the way, not American, or that he lives in Texas and on some occasions I'm envious. Would you like one more? The Sins of the Old Gray Lady or Why the Press Hates You? I may have made mention of this somewhere in a podcast in passing, but nevertheless, The Sins of the Gray Lady or Why the Press Hates You? Authored by j header p ed E r zay z An via Real Clear Politics, and the following is a chapter from the recently released book Against the Corporate Media. Forty two Ways the Press Hateship? Again worthy of attention or I wouldn't include it? There is one more September twelve. The Leviathan has not been tamed. The Leviathan has not been tamed. For forty years, US courts have deferred to unelected bureaucrats for the interpretation of ambiguous statutes. The principle of Chevron deference is the legal basis of the administrative state, the extra constitutional rule by experts that provides the legal framework and the worker day operations of the woke regime. You can see why I have thrown that, thrown that in. The Leviathan has not been tamed and we are in a position to be able to appreciate that now. I'd be very interested to hear from those of you who might follow up on any of those and whether or not you think this is worthy of a tension each week I do so I shall continue, but your your thoughts would be most welcome. Laton at newstalkzeb dot co dot nz or Carolyn at Newstalk zb dot co dot NZB. And I keep saying that we love getting your mail. That really takes us out for podcasts two hundred and fifty seven, So the only thing left to say is, as always, thank you for listening and we shall talk soon.
Thank you for more from Newstalk ZEDB. Listen live on air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever you go with our podcast on iHeartRadio
