Leighton Smith Podcast #277 - March 26th 2025 - Guy Hatchard

On March 16, the New York Times published “We Were Badly Mislead About The Event That Changed Our Lives”. It reports that 77 Nobel Laureates and 31 scientific societies were involved in the cover up that included deliberately planning to mislead journalists. (Actually, the NYT can be accused of failing to do its job).

Guy Hatchard analyses what really took place in New Zealand and elsewhere under the heading of "A strange mental illness is spreading via infected information networks". It’s a most revealing discussion.

Also we comment on “The climate scam is over”; a ground breaking study using AI to debunk the man-made climate crisis narrative. Who would’ve thought. (Michael Mann is getting destroyed every which way)!

And the Mailroom with Mrs Producer is excellent.

File your comments and complaints at [e-mail]

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

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:09):
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 Coward by news talks it B.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Welcome to podcasts two hundred and seventy seven for the
twenty sixth of March twenty twenty five. I'm going to
reverse the order of two double seven for a moment
which reflects the way that it came together. At the
back end is something that you shouldn't miss. The climate
scam is over. It's a headline, and I'm aiming it
directly at the politicians of this country who have misled

(00:51):
and continue to mislead on climate through every administration, and
they're robbing the country and its taxpayers of billions of dollars.
And they do it sometimes unwittingly because they have closed minds.
But back to the introduction, A strange mental illness is
spreading via infected information networks. Now, that's the heading for

(01:14):
the Hatchet Report on March twenty. When I read it,
I dropped any other considerations for two double seven and
made contact with Guy Hatchett, and so he is today's guest.
Media outlets have begun to admit error. These are subheadings
how distorted information networks, manipulatus, COVID vaccine messaging was designed

(01:37):
to mislead, and where to in the information age? In
the modern age, information has been mistaken for knowledge at
it's eight necessarily so. And there's some very good correspondents
in the mail room this week, and I should say,
and this is the right time to do it, that
if you'd like to correspond with us latent at newstalksb

(01:58):
dot co dot nz or Carolyn at newstalksb dot co
dot nz. I've been leaving it till the end of
the podcast for quite a while, Will keep saying he
should do it at the front. And there we go,
Laton Smith. But first, there's something I want to quote you.
This comes from the bank cover of a book by

(02:19):
Victor Davis Hanson, and I think that you are aware
of my respect for Victor Davis Hanson. The book is
The Dying Citizen, and Hanson shows once again why he's
America's premier scholar, writer, and political observer, Drawing on his
training as a classicist and clearly informed by his deep
personal experience living and farming in California, San Joaquin Valley.

(02:41):
Hanson has written a tour de force on the history, rights,
and responsibilities of modern citizenship and the galaxy of forces
that are undermining the concept of citizenship today. Now he
concentrates the course on American citizenship and probably any Anglo
speaking country in the world. And this is what he
said in a column on March twenty of this year.

(03:03):
The left knowingly pushed falsehoods on COVID, Biden's fitness, laptop,
and the border dividing the nation while facing no accountability. Now,
I'm going to restrict this pretty much to the first
mention COVID, because that is the subject of much discussion today.
For years, the left has advanced utter untruths for cheap

(03:26):
partisan purposes that it knew at the time were all false,
and now, when caught, they just shrug and say they
were lying all along. Once it was known that the
first COVID nineteen case originated in or near a Chinese
commonist virology lab engineering gain in function deadly viruses with
help from Western agencies, the left went into full persecution mode.

(03:49):
They damned as incompetent, racist, and conspiratorial any who dared
follow logic and evidence to point out that the Chinese
government and its military were both culpable for the virus
and lying. A million Americans died of COVID, millions more
suffered long term. Still, the left wing media and the

(04:10):
Biden administration demonized anyone who dared speak to the truth
about a lab origin of the deadly virus. The lies
were designed to protect the guilty who had helped fund
the virus's origins, such as doctors Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins.
The Biden administration also tried to use the lab theory
to ridicule a supposedly pro Trump conspiracy. Western corporate interests

(04:35):
deeply invested in China did not want their partner held
responsible for veritably killing and maiming hundreds of millions worldwide.
Almost as soon as Joe Biden was inaugurated, the left
knew that he was physically and mentally unable to serve
as president. Indeed that was the point. And then further on,
he makes sir comment on Hunter Biden's laptop, refers to

(04:56):
the debate between Biden and Trump and says a lying
media damned Trump as a puppet of Vladimir Putin. Joe
Biden little more than a week later won the twenty
twenty election. Biden administration deliberately destroyed the southern border and
welcomed twelve million illegal aliens, and that it lied that
Biden had no power to stop the influx. And he

(05:18):
concludes with this summary, all of these lies have divided
the country and permanently damage the US. The perpetrators have
neither apologized for their lies, nor tried to either deny
nor substantiate them. No one involved has ever been held
legally accountable. The legacy media permanently ruined its reputation and
will likely never be seen as credible again. And the

(05:41):
Biden administration, overseer of these many lies, will be regarded
as the most duplicitous and dishonest presidency in modern history. Now,
how can you disagree with that? How can you argue
with that? You can't? Nah, After a short break, we'll
talk with Guy. Hatchan is an antihistamine made in Switzerland

(06:11):
to the highest quality. Leverix relieves hay fever and skin
allergies or itchy skin. It's a dual action antihistamine and
has a unique nasal decongestent action. It's fast acting for
fast relief and it works in under an hour and
lasts for over twenty four hours. Leverrix is a tiny

(06:31):
tablet that unblocks the nose, deals with itchy eyes, and
stops sneezing. Leverx is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to
the highest quantity. So next time you're in need of
an effective antihistamine, call into the pharmacy and ask for
Leverx lv Rix, Levrix and always read the label. Takes

(06:53):
directed and if symptoms persist, see your health professional. Farmer
Broker Auckland Latam Smith. Guy Hatchard, PhD is a former
senior manager at genetic Id, which is a global food

(07:16):
testing and certification company. He's lived in New Zealand for
a good number of years now. He has been on
the podcast on more than one occasion in the past,
and while he's subject to much criticism from weld quarters
that want to criticize him because they don't like what
he says, I have found after being skeptical. I said

(07:39):
this before, after being skeptical at the beginning, when people
were encouraging me to interview Guy Hatchet. I've discovered that
there is a certain reliability to his commentary. So Guy,
it's good to have you back on the.

Speaker 3 (07:54):
Great Beyond Layton. Good to talk.

Speaker 2 (07:57):
The cause of my making contact with you on this
occasion was what you released on the twentieth of March,
A strange mental illness is spreading of via infected information networks.
But before we get onto that, I just want to
cover off something else, because we'll not cover it off,

(08:17):
but I want to make mention of something else. You
earlier in January wrote something that was headed waking up
from the dream of biotechnology. Now you've been opposed to
this genetic experimentation that this country looks like it might
very well head for, and your experience at genetic Id,

(08:38):
the company, my guess is, stands you in very good
stead for being a participant knowledgeably in the biotech debate.

Speaker 3 (08:48):
Absolutely. I mean I worked in a company that we
dealt with the world's biggest food ingredient suppliers, people like
ADM and Cargo, and we had to certify their food

(09:08):
free of genetic engineering in order that they could access
export markets. And as a result of my position there
and my background in science. Of course, I came across
and had a lifelong contact with people working in biotech

(09:30):
research and gene therapy and so on, so at an
inside view of the impact of genetic engineering on economic
systems and on food systems, and that dovetails very well
with what we're facing today, which is the government planning
to deregulate biotechnology, which to my mind is extraordinary after

(09:54):
what we've just been through for five years of the pandemic.

Speaker 2 (09:58):
We'll get onto that, but let's go back and begin
with the cause of the conversation. One of the first
to suggest that COVID was created in a lemb biologists,
Elena Chan, faced death threats and was branded a race traitor.
Now she tells Ian Burrell there was a real conspiracy

(10:18):
among very powerful scientists. The cover up was morally repugnant.
End quote. The story is unfolded at length and well
worth the time spent reading it. This article that we're
quoting from discusses how this could have could have happened
and why similar tropes are continuing to influence public opinion
to this day. Just back up for me and fill

(10:39):
us in a bit more on Alena Chan. If you would.

Speaker 3 (10:42):
Alena Chan is a scientist working in biotech, and of
course biotech is a huge enterprise in employing millions of
people these days around the world. And she looked very
early on at the structure of the COVID virus and realized,

(11:04):
as many people did around the world, that this obviously
came from a and she thought, this question has to
be asked now. That's all she did. She asked the
question is she said, when we're looking at the origin
of COVID, we need to also consider the possibility that

(11:25):
it came from a lab, and that was sufficient to
cancel her. It ultimately led to the loss of her
job because she was treading on very powerful toll toes.
People who had been involved in the experimentation at Wuhan

(11:45):
Virology Lab wanted to ensure that no such questions were asked,
so they said about shutting her up and shutting many
people up. I talked to people in gene therapy very
early on, and they said, categorically, this came from a lab,
but please don't mention my name because I'll lose my job.

(12:08):
This was an area that was absolutely suppressed and it
was a conspiracy. It was a genuine conspiracy. And we
know it's a conspiracy because now, as a result of
hearings in the Senate in the US, the actual texts
of emails that the people involved in trying to shut

(12:29):
up these questions have come out, and they themselves knew
and believed it came from a lab. And yet they
said about shutting it up because they were protecting their turf.
They were protecting themselves from blame. They were protecting biotechnology
in general from criticism.

Speaker 2 (12:48):
At what level were these people with whom you spoke.

Speaker 3 (12:53):
Well, they were people who were involved in gene therapy
at some of the most prestigious institutions in the world,
leading institution. These were leading scientists, and they were being
shut up. These were not people on them on the edges.
I mean, for example, Richard Richard H. E. Bright, who

(13:14):
is a world renowned microbiologist and an expert on biotechnology safety.
I mean, he was speaking up from the beginning and
asking questions. He was warning journalists, but again his voice
was drowned out. And how and the story of how

(13:35):
how they succeeded in drowning out this conversation is the
very interesting topic of the article. We're going to be discussing.

Speaker 2 (13:45):
What about the level of people who were who were well,
who were telling the lies.

Speaker 3 (13:51):
How high you couldn't go much bigger than that.

Speaker 2 (13:55):
That's true, but earlier, but earlier on, before it became
obvious that he was he was part of it, and
he was he was fibbing.

Speaker 3 (14:06):
Yeah, there were right, there were people who are fronting it.
There were scientists who were fronting it, who were publishing
papers in Nature, in the Lancet, and they were concocted.
They were deliberately concocted. And again their emails show this.
These papers were deliberately concocted to suggest that it was

(14:29):
only a snotic origin, the origin from animals that could
be considered. And they've since been picked apart mathematically and genetically,
and that's published now and in the public record, and
they were deliberately misleading and those paper. Interestingly, those papers

(14:50):
have not been withdrawn. They're still in you know, you
can still access them on the web, even though they're
completely discredited. Because the people clubbed together to protect by
technology presented themselves as trusted sources. And this is how

(15:14):
they worked. They had names, people like Faucci and so
on had names, and they were recognized as trusted sources,
and they used that to leverage public opinion using well
known principles of network science.

Speaker 2 (15:31):
Do you know if any of those people who have
paid the price that they should pay.

Speaker 3 (15:37):
You know, obviously they haven't. I mean, Faucchi as to
a certain extent, has been discredited. Peter Daizac, who was
the one basically organizing the research in Wuhan, He's British.
He is now banned from receiving any more grants from NIH.
These are very mild kind of punishments. They are kind

(15:59):
of you know, slat with a wet flannel over your
smallest finger, and you know, we're dealing here with a
pandem that in which millions of people have died. And
yet the punishments so to speaker, oh, well that was
you know, will be sort of a little bit careful

(16:20):
about this person in future.

Speaker 2 (16:21):
All right, So that's that person, But there are lots
of other persons who will not be affected by it
and undoubtedly will continue on the same or a similar path.

Speaker 3 (16:33):
Well, there is a huge industry biotechnology. It's an absolutely
huge industry, and you know it's one built on imagination
and dreams that we've seventy years now, more than seventy
years since the structure, the hellicore structure of DNA was discovered,

(16:54):
and we've been promised miracle cures but they haven't materialized.
But still we're being asked for more grant money, more funding,
less regulation, let us do whatever we want to do.
But it's not paradigm that's producing results. It looks far
more like a lottery. You know, In a lottery, millions

(17:16):
of people every week are doomed to disappointment, but there's
one group who profit every week. That's the organizers of
the lottery. And what we're seeing is that biotech is
promising every week, but I don't really see any useful
results coming out. As far as public health or agriculture

(17:39):
are concerned. It's time we drop these people.

Speaker 2 (17:44):
Okay. Now, media outlets have begun to admit error. I
know that The New York Times, for instance, has well
not fessed up, but alluded to the fact that, in
other words, they've spread the responsibility, alluded to the fact
that they were misled, where in fact they weren't just misled,

(18:07):
they were part of it.

Speaker 3 (18:09):
Absolutely. Yeah. They published an article just a couple of
days ago we were badly misled about the event that
changed our lives. And it reported that seventy seven Nobel
it's in thirty one Science.

Speaker 2 (18:22):
Sorry, seventy seven Nobel laureates.

Speaker 3 (18:25):
Seventy seven Nobel laureates and thirty one scientific societies were
involved in the cover up, and that included deliberately planning
to mislead journalists about the origin of COVID. And that's
you know, that's the New York Times, and the New
York Times is a paper that has consistently been very

(18:48):
pro government policy. So this is a big turnaround for them.
And nevertheless, they were well informed right from the beginning.
That was a big problem. They were told that the
research at wu HAN was like look looking for a

(19:09):
gas leak with a lighted match, and they and they
ignored it, and that all this is is very well documented,
but extraordinarily it hasn't really reached New Zealand why, I
don't know. Our papers just seem to be just not
prepared to admit that they made mistakes in the coverage

(19:31):
of COVID.

Speaker 2 (19:32):
And of their much of their information, much of their
journalism comes from American media, especially The New York Times,
Washington Post and some other places, and they rolled with
them and having found that they were misled themselves, if
you'd like to be generous, they don't want to make

(19:54):
reference to it because it just draws attention.

Speaker 3 (19:57):
Yeah, absolutely, it undermines their standing. Of course, they are
standing has been undermined because a lot of what they
predicted at the outset of the pandemic is so obviously
not true. But it's kind of frightening that we're still
in the dark here whereas overseas. I mean, for example,

(20:17):
just yesterday there was an article in which Boris Johnson
was writing a former British Prime minister, and he was
saying that he now accepts the lab leak origin of COVID,
and his conclusion is we need to go after the

(20:40):
Chinese government and hold them to account. Well, of course
the research occurred in China, but it was funded by
the US. And he's he himself, this is one of
the revelations that has come out. Was informed when he
was Prime Minister by the head of mi I six,

(21:00):
Richard Dierlove, that COVID came from a lab with one
hundred percent certainty. This was the conclusion of the British
Secret Service in twenty twenty, and Boris Johnson himself buried
the report. He now wants to deflect intelligence, you know,

(21:21):
attention by saying, oh, we should go after China. Well,
China wasn't at fought here. It was a biotech community
which is working really outside any sort of safety factors
which are reasonable, and who have you know, started this

(21:42):
whole program of gain of function research, making viruses more
deadly and seeing what happened and seeing if they could
stop them. That was beyond any reasonable assessment of acceptable risk.
And that they're the area. That's the area that has

(22:05):
to be held account not China, not not even America
per se. It was a community that had started to
do things and it hasn't stopped. That was the other
thing that the New York Times article warned against. The
Research of that character is still going on at Wuhan

(22:26):
Virology Institute, still using a low lab safety protocol. That
has to be stopped. It's risky and how do how
does it get stopped?

Speaker 4 (22:38):
There has to be an open conversation that starts where goodness,
how does one to stop it?

Speaker 3 (22:48):
There has to be global legislation outlawing biotechnology experimentation. There
has to be some kind of international agreement, and there
has to be a knowledge revolution when it comes to biotechnology,
because biotechnology has has these misleading public ideas that are

(23:10):
promoted to make it all sound very safe and interesting
and wonderful and miraculous. We have humans have about twenty
thousand genes, but these genes have trillions of functions, trillions
of functions. And the idea that one gene is responsible

(23:34):
for one thing, and if you change that gene, then
you're going to improve that one thing. It's just simply
completely and utterly pause. It's a myth. If you change
one gene, you're going to change thousands of other functions.

Speaker 2 (23:52):
So, in other words, one gene in your system gets
affected and engined dead in the water. Well. Is that
an exaggeration.

Speaker 3 (24:03):
It's a question of the paradigm. Is that you got
a lot of leeway to it. This is the biotech paradigm.
You've got a lot of leeway to experiment when it
comes to genetic systems, and this arises out of a
misunderstanding of Darwinian ideas about evolution, and actually genetic systems

(24:26):
have evolved over millions of years and it's an extended,
integrated ecosystem, which is very, very specific. That has evolved
is this interdependency, and this system is delicate. The mistake
is thinking that genes or genetic ethics that are created

(24:50):
in a laboratory will somehow not upset the fundamentals of
this system. And what the pandemic teaches us is now,
especially we know the origin of COVID, that genetic engineering
does upset the fundamentals of the system. And that's a
crucial understanding that has to get through that. What has

(25:15):
happened is we've created a monster. We've trained millions of
people in biotechnology, and ideas are taught in school that
somehow it's wonderful and safe and it's going to make
us live longer, grow taller, become more intelligent, and be
healthy and happy. And that's simply a myth and there's

(25:38):
no evidence to support that that's going to happen.

Speaker 2 (25:41):
So you've written extraordinarily some of the scientists involved in
the cover up still making key decisions that affect us all.
First question, first question of that, are they New Zealand
scientists to fall into that category?

Speaker 3 (25:57):
Absolutely. The whole the whole push by industry to deregulate
biotechnology is this is where the technology built currently before
Parliament has come from. Is that the scientists are saying,
we want the freedom to experiment. And this has been

(26:17):
the whole history of biotechnology around the world, that the
push not to be regulated. Biotechnologists do not want to
be regulated. They want to be free to experiment, and
we shouldn't let them be free to experiment because of

(26:41):
the experience of the last five years, things can go
terribly wrong and there will be and there are rogue
people in the biotechnology system who are doing secretly doing things.
This again is the lesson of the pandemic. People are
secretly trying out some wild ideas.

Speaker 2 (27:02):
So Jeremy Farah, now this is stunning. The sims Jeremy
Farah now Chief Scientists at the World Health Organization instructed
the authors of a paper that was subsequently published by
Nature they should specifically rule out a lab origin. So

(27:23):
Jeremy Farah.

Speaker 3 (27:25):
Now chief Scientists at All.

Speaker 2 (27:28):
I'm just stunned by it. Then Lord Valence, now the
UK government's Science Minister, quashed the conclusion of MI sixter
Chief Sir Richard Dilov that a Lablik origin was one
hundred percent certain. So you have people in Britain who
are at the top of the political game, who have

(27:49):
interfered with things that they know nothing about and lied
and cheated, and they're still in those positions or similar ones.
Why how does that happen.

Speaker 3 (28:03):
People made a lot of money during the pandemic, and
people today love people who made lots of money. And
the people who made lots of money during the pandemic
were quite varied. The course of the pharmaceutical companies made
a lot of money, and then there were people providing
services government pandemic services and masks and policies and consultants

(28:27):
and so on. And this is an industry that absolutely
thrives on money. And governments are kind of you know
they have today they have sort of enormous respect for
people who made money, however they made it, and so
in Britain and in the US and in many other countries,

(28:49):
there is a view that biotechnology is a panacea and
it's a you know, it's something that's going to go
on giving financially. But just remember that all of these
people made money during the pandemic because gave them contracts

(29:10):
that we paid for it. We impoverished New Zealand the
UK was impoverished as a result of the transfer of
funds into the biotechnology industry, into a transfer of funds
into the very people who we now know caused the

(29:33):
problem in the first place. That's brightening and the fact
that that hasn't been recognized, and the fact that people
are still clinging to faith in this paradigm, this biotech paradigm,
is absolutely frightening.

Speaker 2 (29:52):
And what are called Doctor Leanna Winn, who admits some
COVID conspiracy theories were actually true. From early on in
the pandemic, Win took a hash stance on vaccine descent
during her regular appearances on c as a medical analyst,
her opinion pieces for The Washington Post, and her time

(30:13):
as a guest contributor for NPR, National Public Radio, PBS, BBC,
and probably the worst offender of them all on a
consistent basis MSNBC where they're all insane, where she called
for severe restrictions on the unvaccinated, She now admits that
COVID vaccine will repeat it. She now admits that COVID vaccines,

(30:37):
among other things, caused menstrual difficulties and says COVID dissenters
should have been able to ask questions and that she
would have answered them a faux apology with a hollow ring.
No doubt she misses those heady days when she shone
in the international media limelight. If I may, for as

(31:01):
long as I can recall now, I've been damning CNN,
MSNBC and some of the other the New York Times
because of their misleading. And I use the word journalism loosely,
and people say, oh, no, no, no, they wouldn't do that,
They wouldn't do that. But the history shows, history shows,

(31:21):
starting with the New York Times and going back to
the First World War and on from there, capable of
great dishonesty.

Speaker 3 (31:33):
You say, absolutely, we have to be very careful. That's
another lesson that these these were people trusted sources of information,
and it's that misled people. And apparently they want now

(31:56):
to say, oh, I'm sorry, I was wrong, Please let
me be a trusted source again. We shouldn't let them
be a trusted source again. We should now learn the
lesson that we need to have broader information sources, and
that is a function of modern living, is that the

(32:20):
number of information sources in the world has reduced the
means of spreading them has increased, so in a sense,
we became victim of our own, our own reliance on
a small number of sources, and that influenced public opinion.

(32:44):
And it was deliberate, It was deliberately manipulated. If you
have a situation where there are hundreds millions of people
relying on a small number of sources, and those sources
are not very careful about how they get their information,
then a small number of scientists, a very very small

(33:08):
nomber of scientists, can actually influence those trusted sources, and
the trusted sources then influence public opinion, and then everybody
starts talking to one another and they're all saying, oh, well,
I read it there, I read it there. It only
comes from one source, but it's reinforcing itself. This is

(33:29):
how networks, closed networks work. When you have a closed
controlled network, you can influence public opinion. And people these
days who want to influence public opinion realize how this works,
and they manipulated. And it happened here in New Zealand.
Big time. People just simply didn't you know. Two contrary

(33:52):
opinions were not just absent, they were severely canceled restricted,
so that we didn't get an open public debate. We
still haven't had an open public.

Speaker 2 (34:06):
And as we know, this is one of a number
of issues, but probably the biggest that has divided friendships, families, businesses,
all sorts of all sorts of damage has been wrought
on society. And I think it's still the same. It
might have lessened, it might have backed off a little bit,
but it still exists.

Speaker 3 (34:27):
We have to This is the great news today. Really,
the freeing news is that the whole debate was framed us.
Is this disaster due to covid or is it due
to COVID vaccines? Well, it doesn't matter. They both came
from a biotech lab. It's time we started asking questions
about biotech labs. That's that's the lesson for New Zealand.

(34:49):
It doesn't matter whether which one you think, whether it's
COVID or COVID vaccines, they both came out of the lab.
They both invade cells, they both ort to genetic functions,
they were both man made through biotechnology experimentation. It's about
time we ask some very serious questions about biotech safety.

(35:12):
And we don't have to rely on people on scientists
who have vested interests in getting grants and government support
to do whatever they want to do, because their advice
is clearly biased. And now we see that the minute
this pandemic took place, senior scientists move to protect their

(35:37):
interest by distorting the public dialogue. It's criminal.

Speaker 2 (35:41):
There's one thing I want to ask you. Donald Trump
has withdrawn from the World Health Organization, and that's being
met with varied reaction. But there are plenty of people
who plenty of people who believes that he's done the
right thing. My question is, because I think other countries

(36:03):
will do it also, should we join them?

Speaker 3 (36:05):
Absolutely? World Health Organization is in the global unaccountable space.
It's not accountable to anyone, it's not accountable to any electorate.
I mean, this is the If you look at the pandemic,
you see multinational companies. You see organizations like World Health

(36:26):
Organization and IGMA, for example, the International Coalition of Medicine's
regulatory authorities, which operate in the global space pre of
any regulation and are in the case of WHO and
IGMA are largely funded by the pharmaceutical industry and they
serve the purposes of the pharmaceutical industry. And I think

(36:48):
in this case, you know, whatever you think of Donald
Trump and all the things that he has done and
hasn't done, leaving the World Health Organization as far as
a funder goes with a sensible kind of response to
what went on during the pandemic, we weren't well served
by them. And to suggest, as our government appears ready

(37:12):
to do, that we should give up our sovereignty in
the event of the inevitable event of another pandemic and
hand it over to who is a frightening prospect. They
did not ask questions of the pharmaceutical industry during the
pandemic that they should have asked.

Speaker 2 (37:31):
Why is that?

Speaker 3 (37:32):
Yes, that's the big question is why is that? I
think we have a very weak media here in New
Zealand who haven't asked critical questions of the government, and
we have a government who borrows opinions very easily from

(37:53):
infected sources. So, for example, medsafe is clued in to BIGMA,
the International Coalition of medicine's regulatory authorities. It's clued in
be A databases. We are medicine's regular to Medsafe relies
upon shared databases that are created overseas but ready made

(38:16):
opinions about regulations, drugs, health policy, and so on. We
simply arrive in their inbox ready written, and they then
pass it on to our government officials and give it
the med safe stamp of approval without real forethought. And

(38:40):
that again is how information systems become infected. And what
we have to remember as people is that it's not information.
There's no there's huge amounts of information out there. Is
we always have to remember that what is important is knowledge,

(39:00):
and knowledge is through our five senses, our intellect, our mind,
our self reflective consciousness. These are things that we have
to treasure. And because of the bombardment of information that
now goes on, we have come to rely through our

(39:21):
devices on ready made opinions. And the government is as
much a victim as this as the man in the street.
And that's what we're seeing here in New Zealand is
the government regurgitating opinions about biotechnology safety after we've just
had a pandemic in which millions of people died worldwide

(39:44):
as a result of biotechnology experimentation, and yet they haven't
woken up to that. They're sleepwalking to disaster.

Speaker 2 (39:54):
I had Brody Hyde on the podcast couple of weeks back,
and when he was in Parliament he was the only
member to have any science background, any science degree or practicality.
Whether that's still the same, Whether there's been anybody since then,
I'm not I'm not sure. I know there've been doctors,
but not scientists. As such. The fact that he knew

(40:17):
more about some things than anybody else did did not
stand him in good stead. I don't think in some
of the decisions that were that were made.

Speaker 3 (40:28):
I think, you know, he would have been resented in
a in a parliament which has come to be dominated
by ideology rather than knowledge. That is the hallmark of
the modern parliament, Okay, which, after all, it starts from

(40:49):
a fraudulent basis. People can go out on the campaign
trail promise anything they like, even if they intend to
do something entirely different. They just promise in order to
get votes. And you know, when you when you live
your life like that, you affect who you are and
what you become. Truth is extremely important. If you live

(41:13):
a lie, that lie takes over your life. And politicians
are living a lie. They're getting out there promising things
they know that they can't deliver, and they're distorting the
way that their mind works and the resulting behavior and you.
We've ended up now in the modern era with a

(41:35):
Parliament which which seems to be completely unaccountable. It seems
to have developed its own idea that their role as
our representatives is simply to tell us what to do,
and to tell us what to do without a good basis,
without a good logical basis. And if someone is elected

(41:56):
to Parliament who asks questions, they're ostracized in the same
way that scientists asking questions about the origins of COVID
were ostracized because it doesn't fit the paradigm we're now
As has happened in the last week, we're now in
a situation where David Seymour and Simeon Brown are saying

(42:22):
that no health practitioner employed by the government can speak
freely about medical matters. They have to first check with
the hierarchy before they're allowed to say anything. Well, a
closed society in which opinions are suppressed and speech is

(42:44):
suppressed is the hallmark of a dictatorship, is the hallmark
of a repressive regime. And that's the direction we're going in.
And as Seymour said, I'm putting the muppets back in
their box now. He was talking about medical professionals. He
was referring to them as muppets, and he said, I'm

(43:06):
putting them back in this and that is a all
of arrogance.

Speaker 2 (43:10):
That's unacceptable.

Speaker 3 (43:13):
It's unacceptable. But somehow, rather the media has become tolerant
of it. They're not asking questions that should be asked.

Speaker 2 (43:25):
You don't suppose do you by any chance that the
current future as it as it looks for the New
Zealand Herald might improve on it?

Speaker 3 (43:37):
Well? It could, isn't it. We have a we have
a you know, someone who's bought Jim Grennan who's reportedly
bought a nine per cent interest in and said me
and he wants to be on the board and have
an influence.

Speaker 2 (43:54):
But he's he's got now at least fifty of the vote.

Speaker 3 (43:59):
Oh well then we may, we may see a change.

Speaker 2 (44:02):
No, it's all, it's all go. And I'm and I'm
I'm sort of sorry to take the approach that I
am having had connection with them and still do to
some degree. But his his major goal, I mean, he's
not in there just for charity, but his major goal
is to improve the journalism. Now, whatever that might mean,

(44:25):
I can only imagine that that will make the paper
more interesting.

Speaker 3 (44:30):
Yes, because at the moment it's readership is falling precisely
because it's not very interesting and we're seeing a proliferation.

Speaker 2 (44:42):
Yeah, when you touched on it a moment ago, when
you were when you were talking about the restriction of views.
That leads to a captured audience. So under the subheating
of what will happen to us, a quick look across
the ditch to Australia reveals they've already they already have
a gene technology regulated doctor Raj Muller. I've got a

(45:03):
question about that too. He has announced that a period
of thirty days public submissions will be held starting in
March before the probable that's now just probable approval of
the release of genetically engineered mosquitoes in Queensland. Like, what
could go wrong? It doesn't stop there. The idea of

(45:25):
experimenting on Australians is catching on fast incredibly. Buller's office
has just rated the following project at the Doherty Institute,
University of Melbourne as posing negligible to moderate risk to
human health and safety. The initial aim is to evaluate

(45:46):
the safety and infectivity of recombinant seasonal human influenza viruses
in healthy volunteers. These GM viruses will then be used
to assess the effectiveness of therapeutic drugs or vaccine candidates
to prevent and control influenza infection. And that's the end

(46:07):
of the quote. But then the lab is proposing to
make gene altered versions of the flu and then test
out various genetic drugs and all vaccines on human volunteers
over five year period. Given the low risk rating by
the regulator, the project which creates new viruses is likely
to be a shoe in for a rubber stamp. Does
any of this sound at all familiar? What's the answer?

Speaker 3 (46:33):
Well, look, the thing is that we've been talking about
a lab leak, you know, as if it's an accident.
It was a mistake, But now you know and this
is how biotechnology works. Now, having had one go at
this by acces, apparently by accident, now it's promulgated as

(46:57):
a deliberate policy to invent new viruses and then test
them out on humans. How can this be contained? It's
a mystery to me how the kind of experimental interface
front line of biotechnology keeps expanding with these exotic, risky

(47:20):
project projects. And they have a gene regulator in Australia.
We are soon going to have a gene regulator who's
just going to be a facilitator. They're going to be
an industry facilitator. And our government is cutting out any
consideration of precautionary science. It's cutting out any question of

(47:43):
labeling genetically modified product projects. It's this is very crucial
to understand about the Gene Technology Bill. It quite apart
from there being a regulator for some projects, it is
setting up a system where certain types of genetic engineering,

(48:04):
which in the actual fact is most genetic engineering, is
simply going to be completely unregulated. So crisper gene techniques
have been designated as inherently safe and therefore projects using
crisper are simply not going to be regulated. They're just

(48:25):
going to be allowed to go ahead unidentified. It's an
extraordinary step that our government is proposing, clearly pushed on
by foreign interests, and we are going to be on
the receiving end of this kind of experimentation. Where do
we go from here, Well, the only thing is to

(48:48):
you know, we want out.

Speaker 2 (48:50):
The election you know half a term ago was a
great relief to a large portion of the country, the
majority by far. And as a result of that, has
the audience, as in the public become like a daisical
are they pay we if you like, paying enough attention

(49:12):
to what's going on and passing on our feelings to
the powers that be who should be become aware of it,
because it seems to me that there is a lot
that is happening that rightly informs people would probably object
to rather strongly.

Speaker 3 (49:29):
I think what it has become clear is that Luxon
was apparently, you know, an Admira of Ardern style. He
certainly you know, it's my way, all the highway with Luxon,
and there is not a genuine debate. A couple of

(49:51):
weeks ago I submitted to the Health Select Committee and
it was like talking to the three monkeys, hear no evil,
see no evil, and that it was passive. It was
a passive situation. And I was talking about science that
published scientific papers, recently published scientific papers that were raising

(50:12):
very serious questions about risk and biotechnology. And it was
at the end it was oh, thank you very much,
next please. But if someone came on, as I listened
to the whole proceedings, who was pro biotechnology, was oh,
very good, so glad that you could come. Very interesting,
and that was this is a parliament that has it

(50:37):
has an agenda, has an ideology. It's going to go ahead,
whatever the science, whatever the public opinion. It's my way
or the highway. And this is what characterizes this government.
And it's not just this government is parliament. Anyone who
thinks that Chris Hipkins and all he did during the

(50:58):
pandemic is going to be a better alternative at that
point is completely wrong. The whole Parliament has got into
a mode of functioning supported by the media that is
not in the public interest. There is not in the
interest of public health. They're promoting programs which are shown
to be risky, which do not have benefits, which are

(51:20):
hugely costly, which we are not going to be able
to afford. Gene therapies cost around five million dollars per
person and they're very risky. A program to help people
with sickle celler nemia has been going on for five years,
funded by Vertex technology, has so far treated twenty two

(51:43):
people five of only five of those people had any
residual benefit after one year of the procedure, and the
cost was five million dollars per person, plus a lot
of people suffered serious side effects during that program. And
this is something that Judith Collins and Luxon have been

(52:06):
getting up and saying we need in New Zealand. We
do not need programs in New Zealand that are very
risky and do not work and fail very quickly and
cost a lot of money. In contrast, programs to improve
diet and health have enormous, large effect sizes on a

(52:30):
whole variety of diseases like cancer, like heart disease, like
autoimmune conditions, diabetes, so public educator and they don't cost
a lot. And instead we have the Deputy Health Minister
David Seymour when some hapless doctor in Queenstown said they

(52:54):
or in Wanaka said they were worried about McDonald's opening
because of the possible impact on child health and when
he said that, the response of David Seymour was to
shut him up and say we're going to put these
mu it's back in their box, when in fact, it's
well known that a poor diet is causing a tsunami
of illness in the population. The adulteration of our foods

(53:19):
with a high degree of genetically altered content in the
processing agents is having a catastrophic effect on public health,
and yet our government is saying people who are saying
that are muppets. They're not muppets. This is mainstream science.
I don't want to stop people eating what they want

(53:40):
to eat, but be aware of the fact that how
your grandmother prepared food is not how multinational companies prepare
food today. They prepare food using materials that come out
of biotechnic batch fermentation, heavily polluted batch fermentation vats, and

(54:04):
the things that you know like beta carotene which came
from carrots that used to give the food some color.
They don't come from carrots anymore. They come out of
a biotech lab and they have in them anti they
have pollutants in them, antibiotic genes, antibiotic resistant genes, cell

(54:27):
division promoters. This is not from carrots. This is what
I said about the We have evolved in an integrated
ecosystem where everything is supporting everything else, and if you're
going to introduce man made genetic structures, they're going to

(54:48):
have a drastic effect on health. And that's precisely what
we're seeing.

Speaker 2 (54:54):
You reminded me of what I hear not infrequently in
America out of America in reference to the Democrats, and
it goes like this, very simple. The Democrat Party today
is not the Democrat Party of your parents and grandparents.
And that's all that needs to be said. Same applies

(55:15):
to diet and to the way things are cooked and
what we eat. But of course, as somebody said to
me the other day, and I think it was one
of my boys, oh you're so old fashioned, dad, But
it was meant to be a joke. However, I said,
I'm proud to be old fashioned under the circumstances. Can
I conclude with this? This is something that Professor Rob

(55:38):
McCulloch wrote a couple of days ago, what politicians will
say in their lust for power Labours Hipkins and Otargo B. C.
Robertson must be held to account before the election toward
the end of twenty three. In September of that year,
when Hipkins was PM and Grant Robertson was well now

(56:00):
the vice chancellor of Ottaga University, we're running the show.
This is how they reported on the New Zealand economy
the pre election. An economic and physical update shows no recession,
a growing economy, more jobs and wages ahead of inflation.
Equivalent released today shows New Zealand's economy is turning the

(56:22):
corner economy to grow two point six percent on average
over fourcast period, physical rules met return to surplus. Our
economic plan to support New Zealand as dealing with the
cost of living while investing in building a stronger, more
resilient and inclusive economy is working. Just over six months later,

(56:45):
New Zealand was experiencing a combination of its deepest and
longest economic downturn and recessionary contraction for over thirty years,
fewer jobs, none of its physical rules have been met,
and a worsening cost of living crisis. It goes on,
but I won't continue. It's the same, it's just a

(57:08):
different field at the moment. To that it's politicians who
are not doing their job accurately or appropriately as they should.
What have I said wrong?

Speaker 3 (57:19):
And they're not facing hard facts that in the health system,
it doesn't matter how much money you have. If you
don't have health, it's not possible to enjoy life. So
health is absolutely fundamental. Education is fundamental. What's going on
in our classrooms today?

Speaker 2 (57:40):
Well I was going to mention that earlier, but we
passed it by thanks for raising it.

Speaker 3 (57:44):
Absolutely, it's you know these are but these are fundamentals,
and look common sense. It's not old fashions, is it?

Speaker 2 (57:59):
No? Common sense? Common sense doesn't date.

Speaker 3 (58:02):
No, and where we began with the lab leak. It's
so off and so many people turn to look the
other way. And I was thinking with the other day.
It's as if you you suddenly you're standing at your
front door looking out, and someone appears by your side,
and you think, where did they come from? Well, of
course they came from inside the house you're looking out.

(58:26):
They came from inside the house. And where did COVID.

Speaker 2 (58:29):
Come from inside?

Speaker 3 (58:31):
Obvious that it came from inside the biotech.

Speaker 2 (58:35):
Out Indeed, Guy Hatchard, it's been good as always. How
do people teck on to your.

Speaker 3 (58:42):
We put out a blog the Hatchyld Report dot com
and Globe dot Global to reports and hatch Eyld Report
comes out two or three times a week, and we
always reference signed published science in our articles. It's very
very important. We go to reputable during journals. We reference

(59:05):
our points and we try and explain what's going on
in a landlanguage that the ordinary man in the street
can understand. And then we also published Globe dot Global,
which comes out less frequently, but it looks at it
at more depth at the biotech issues and the problems
in the industry.

Speaker 2 (59:25):
Globe dot Global. Yeah, very good, and again thank you.

Speaker 3 (59:30):
It's a great pleasure as always talking to you late
and you're a great observer of society.

Speaker 2 (59:37):
Thank you guys. Right, missus producer, we are here for

(59:58):
podcast two seventy seven's mailroom later.

Speaker 5 (01:00:01):
How I can fit you in briefly this morning with
all my list of things to do, So let's get
on with it.

Speaker 6 (01:00:09):
It is I'm on a mission.

Speaker 5 (01:00:12):
Leyton Jeff says on Rodney Hyde. I have listened to
this podcast a couple of times now and I have
to say as a politician, I never had much faith
in him. As a former prison officer myself, he back
in two thousand and eight was hugely responsible for the
privatization of Mount Eden Correctional Facility. I had worked in
the old prison for a decade on its closing, but

(01:00:34):
because of mister Hyde was one of a couple of
one hundred dedicated prison staff who were made redundant, most
who ended up after going through a rigorous recruitment process
a greatly inferior private company. Since then, however, I think
the man has matured. As I find myself listening to
his interviews on URCR and reading his articles, I find

(01:00:57):
myself mostly in agreement with him on most subjects. This podcast,
in particular was a great one, and I admire his
actions on the child sex education issue. It is just
part of the attack in our democracy, and I cannot
help but think that with the logic mister Hyde is
now espousing, he sounds much more desirable as a politician.

(01:01:18):
I totally agree with Rodney's take on our current prime minister,
and one can only hope mister Luxon was listening to
those remarks, although I think it would be like water
running off a duck's back. But anyway, I thought I
would say my five cents worth. There have been many
great podcasts in your library of podcasts, but this one
for me was special, and that's from Jeff.

Speaker 2 (01:01:37):
Jeff brilliant is all I can say. Absolutely outstanding right
from Donald talking of Rodney Hyde. A truly broad and
profound coverage which triggered for me diverse reactions now following
in no particular order. Yes, wokism appeals to soft minds.
It relives its adherent from the rigors of objective observation

(01:02:01):
and hard intellectual analysis. Wocism is also a bedmate of
progressive politics, with its self proclaimed philanthropy ignoring what is
reality or what in reality is a subjective concept in
its dark side, an excuse for Marxist style destruction of
the status quo. A Dern knows all about that the

(01:02:22):
human race stands guilty of cyclical irrational behavior, thus the
swings between periods of dark ages and enlightenment. But it
entirely suits the government's anathema to liberal Western democracies to
ferment the seeds of their internal disunity. What better than
woke avoids military intervention. Among the co conspirators of wocism

(01:02:44):
are indoctrination, selective media, apathy, and stupidity. It's a good collection.
When information is scarce or skewed, a sense of comfort
derived from what others do or say is wrongly seen
as a preferred course of action. The power of the
one needs the stupidity of the others, as Bonhoeffer aptly

(01:03:06):
put it.

Speaker 5 (01:03:06):
Regards don Leyton Pete says, thanks for last week's anonymous
correspondent letter.

Speaker 6 (01:03:13):
Withheld until you could read it.

Speaker 5 (01:03:15):
The letter was well worth the weight, if only for
the clear and easily supported statement that Maori and I
see it as primarily the treaty is to activists, and
government pandering to those activists are holding the country back economically.
The bloke and his wife along the street are fine,
as are their children. They are doing their bit. I

(01:03:36):
do not wish to see us move to an ethno
state driven by ethnic and inter ethnic division. I do
not see a need for Mari's seats in Parliament or
Mari wards in local body elections. The division is not helpful,
nor the forced spirituality and suggestion that those with some
Mari DNA know more about the water, the environment and

(01:03:57):
families than anyone else. The issue extends to government failure
to attend to sorting out the courts and the Waitangi
Tribunal to remind both that Parliament is sovereign. Necessary legislation
to resolve the coast water and the currently oversized public
service via the Treatised Public Services Act twenty twenty is

(01:04:20):
essential and required smartly.

Speaker 6 (01:04:22):
Keep up the good work, says Pete.

Speaker 2 (01:04:24):
Pete excellent. This is interesting, isn't that? Brian wrote to
me and said, is that I have never heard a
more useless minister answering questions. What possessed Luxelon to give
that position to this idiot? I now fear more than
ever for New Zealand's future. So I decided i'd reply

(01:04:45):
to Brian's little note. I said, I said, your fear
is well placed. Then he responded, I'm now more feared
than ever. Yes, So I did my little bit.

Speaker 6 (01:04:58):
That's funny Lighton.

Speaker 5 (01:05:01):
Chris says, as usual, another great interview with Rodney Hyde.
I never got on board with him when he was
a politician, but I think in the the last few
years he has grown a large set of cahonis.

Speaker 6 (01:05:12):
Maybe he already had them.

Speaker 5 (01:05:13):
I just didn't see it, and he says, Chris, I
quite like that and support him now. I read his
articles on BBNH listening to the odd RCR topic, and
I too watched the videos of the school board censorship disgrace.
In that episode's mail room, there was a doctri in
yourself endorsing most of the old vaccines. I would also

(01:05:33):
fall in that camp the old vaccines. I had them
more my kids had them. However, I don't going forward
all vaccines will become mRNA, including the tetanus injection, which
I just cannot get on board with. We have no
choice in this, and it will be forced upon all
of us under the guise of the great new technology.
And how much of a benefit it will be to us.

(01:05:55):
I don't believe in our mRNA technology as a vaccine system.
You can see all around you that COVID was bad
for the world, and I don't mean Omicron, delta, etc. However,
I'm talking about what it did to all societies around
the world, but especially Western society. You could take it
all back, not have any vaccines, no lockdowns. Imagine how

(01:06:17):
much better off the world would be. Hindsight is a
great thing for forming a clear perspective. The one silver
lining is we get to see who the true tyrants
that rule over us are and a lot more of
their corruption is now in plain sight. Well that's my
two cents worth, says Chris. I can't wait till the
next interview, Chris, lovely to meet you. The other day,

(01:06:37):
this guy bumped into us in the supermarket and introduced
himself to Leyton.

Speaker 6 (01:06:43):
So nice to meet you, nice Garry.

Speaker 2 (01:06:46):
This goes back to mid February, but it passed over
unwittingly previously. Firstly, I thoroughly enjoyed your latest podcast with
Peter Bagotian, and I found what he had to say
on the Mari culture being of detriment to itself to
be one hundred percent on the mark. Myself being part Marie.

(01:07:07):
It is unfortunately something I've had to come to grips with,
particularly when listening to the likes of Thomas Sole or
even doctor Jordan Peterson. There is a lot of victim
mentality which seems to get passed down from generation to generation. Thankfully,
in my family we have never taken this sort of
blame game beggar type compensation mentality, and I promise you

(01:07:30):
my grandmother will be rolling in a grave. I also
agree with your correspondent that it is time to get
doctor Guy Hatchett back in regards to GMO, where your
dreams came true today, didn't they? And the deregulation of biotechnology.
This is something that I'm keeping a very close eye on,
but unfortunately new was coming if National and Act were

(01:07:52):
to be elected into parliament that, unfortunately it would only
be a matter of time. As for those of us
paying attention, saw them campaign and promote the idea leading
up to the election. Now there's a secondly, and there's
a another page and a half, well actually another two
pages and a quarter of correspondence. So there I shall

(01:08:16):
leave it. But the whole essay, if you like, is
worthy and I appreciate it.

Speaker 6 (01:08:25):
Leydon.

Speaker 5 (01:08:25):
Jeff says, your anonymous letter right from two seventy four
was one hundred percent on the money in my opinion,
not least of which is my endorsement of his wish
for a double appearance by j d Vance following Trump.
Thanks for the good work, says Jeff. Best wishes from
Jeff the Ref and Tennessee.

Speaker 2 (01:08:44):
I'm still going to come and see you, Jeff. I
don't know when or don't know how, but I'm coming
to see you. It'll drop in unannounced. Doctor Michael de
Percy was on point regarding progressive politicians like Adern. Today's
Today's announcement would make you respond, according to wouldn't it?
Obama and Trudeau they're all talking, no action. It's no

(01:09:07):
wonder where mobs often exhibits Trump derangement syndrome. They dismissed
Trump's all talk only to be shocked by Trump's all action.
The Wokarati has never faced anyone like Trump, who was
all talk and all action. In Good Morning Britain, Piers
Morgan gave a brilliant advice about interpreting Trump. Focus on

(01:09:28):
what he does, not what he says. Well, that's well known. Actually,
that was quoted to me by Well via a friend
who was a friend of an American billionaire who knew
Trump well until he died. That is not Trump, that's
the billionaire. Ironically, the most blatant display of woke in
recent times does not come from politicians. Instead, it comes

(01:09:51):
from Disney. The twenty twenty five live remake of Snow
White is Disney's suicide note after overdosing on woke pills.
Disney specifically hired Rachel Zegler as Snow White because she
wasn't white. Rachel Zegler then Poopoo's the original nineteen thirty
seven Snow White for needing a man to save her.

(01:10:13):
And wait this more, in this movie, snow White single
handedly fights and overpowers men much stronger than her. Oh
and yes, Rachel Zigler. Zigler has Trump derangement syndrome, saying
made Trump supporters and Trump voters and Trump himself never
know peace. We've filled with wonderful people in the world.

(01:10:34):
I hope Disney goes bankrupt for killing Marble Star Wars
and pissing on Walt Disney's grave. I haven't heard you
use this phrase for a long time. Later, but Disney
can get off my planet. And Jay I say thank
you very much, miss producer two seven eight, next week

(01:10:56):
see you then, yep, all right, Now, go and do
whatever you got to do. I know you're busy now
to the aforementioned headline of the climate scam is over.

(01:11:18):
On March twenty one, twenty twenty five, the Science of
Climate Change journal published a groundbreaking study using AI Grock
three to debunct debunct the man made climate crisis narrative.
The paper was called a Critical Reassessment of the anthropogenic
CO two global warming hypothesis. This peer reviewed study and

(01:11:41):
literature review not only reassesses Man's role in the climate
change narrative, it also reveals a general trend to exaggerate
global warming. Furthermore, this paper demonstrates that using AI to
critically review scientific data will soon become the standard in
both the physical and medical sciences. How you respond to

(01:12:03):
that is entirely up to you. Makes me a bit nervous,
But let's carry on. After the debarkle of man made
climate change and the corruption the corruption of evidence based
medicine by Big Farmer, the use of AI for government
funded research will become normalized and standards will be developed
for its use in peer reviewed journals. The use of

(01:12:26):
AI and clinical trial development and analysis will drive innovation
in Western medicine in unprecedented ways. The FDA Food and
Drug Administration must adopt AI for analyzing pre clinical and
clinical trial research and design to keep pace with current trends.
Now published on the twenty third of March in Science

(01:12:47):
and Climate Change, the paper A critical reassessment of the
anthropogenic CO two global warming hypothesis, suggests natural forces like
solar activity and temperature cycles are the real culprits. This
study marks a historic milestone to the best of current knowledge.
It's the first peer reviewed climates shigiens paper with an

(01:13:09):
aisystem as the lead author. GROCK three Beta, developed by Xai,
spearheaded the research, drafting the manuscript with human co authors
providing critical guidance. It uses unadjusted records to argue human
CO two only four percent of the annual carbon cycle,

(01:13:30):
that human CO two vanishes into oceans and forests within
three to four years, not centuries, as the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change claims. During the twenty twenty COVID lockdowns,
a seven percent emissions drop that amounted to two point
four billion tons of CO two should have caused a
noticeable dip in the more to lower CO two curve.

(01:13:55):
Yet noblip appeared, hinting nature's dominance. Researcher Demetrius katsuyais cited
in the study bolsters this view. His isotopic analysis finds
no lasting human CO two signature in the atmosphere over centuries,
challenging its impact. His statistical work adds a twist. Temperature

(01:14:18):
drives CO two levels, not vice versa. Shall I repeat
that temperature drives CO two levels, not vice versa, With
heat leading CO two shifts by six to twelve months
in modern data and eight hundred years in ice cores,
It's like thunder before lightning, says Willy Soon, warming pulls

(01:14:41):
CO two from oceans. The study also faults IPCC models
for exaggerating warming. Models predict up to zero point five
percent per decade, but satellite and ground data shows just
zero point one to zero point one three degrees centigrade.
Arctic co ice, expected to shrink sharply, has stabilized since

(01:15:05):
two thousand seven. These models overplaced two's role, says David Leggetts.
They don't fit reality a little more the sun takes
set a stage instead. Analyzing twenty seven solar energy estimates,
the team finds versions with bigger fluctuations, like peaks in

(01:15:26):
the nineteen forties and nineteen eighties, match temperature shifts better
than the IPCC's flat solar model. Adjusted temperature records, cooling
older readings and boosting recent ones inflate warning to one
degree centigrade since eighteen fifty, while unadjusted rural data show
a gentler half a degree rice. This up ends the

(01:15:48):
climate story, says Jonathan Cohler. Nature, not humanity, may hold
the wheel. Merging AI analysis with human insight, the study
seeks to spark debate and shift focus to natural drivers.
It's available at Science of Climate Change, and the authors say,
we invite the public and scientists to like to explore

(01:16:10):
this evidence. Let's question what we've assumed and dig into
what the data really say. Now, how much coverage that'll
get in the mainstream media remains to be seen. My
bet is very little. There will be scientists in this country,
so called scientists, I'd call them failed scientists in many regards,

(01:16:33):
who will try and leverage their position, shall we say,
or their so called reputation into the government not shifting
its ridiculous stance. At this point of time, minister Watts
needs to wake up. I say that, with the best
of intention, mister Watts needs to wake up and open

(01:16:54):
his mind a little or one might start asking questions
about his true intent. Now, all of that came from
one article which runs one, two, three, four, five, five
and a bit pages called the Climate Scam is over
by Robert W. Malone. And everybody should be familiar with
Robert Malone by now, and it provides references to able

(01:17:18):
anybody to access more information. And I would like to
see many people, many people follow up on it. And
on that pleasing note, I will say that takes us
out for podcasts to seventy seven back for two seventy
eight soon and we'll cover more of this climate story undoubtedly,

(01:17:38):
if not next week than very shortly. But that's my intent.
So Latin that newstalksb dot co dot nz or Caroenn
at newstalksb dot co dot nz. As usual, thank you
for listening and we shall talk soon.

Speaker 1 (01:17:59):
Thank you for more from News Talks EDB. Listen live
on air or online, and keep our shows with you
wherever you go with our podcast on iHeartRadio