March 4, 2024 • 40 mins
In this episode, Dr. Harvey Risch discusses the largest COVID vaccine study to date and raises concerns about the analysis and reporting of the study results. He highlights the lack of differentiation in risk profiles and the manipulated messaging surrounding vaccine mandates. Dr. Risch also suggests that COVID was a bioengineered virus and discusses the implications of this. He emphasizes the need for transparency, independent research, and changes in the medical industry to promote a healthier and more truthful society. The Truth with Lisa Boothe is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Monday & Thursday.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Posed a lot.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
It exposed people, it exposed industries, it exposed the so
called experts, it exposed our government, and we were fortunate
throughout it all to have some brave truth tellers. And
one of those individuals is doctor Harvey Risch. He's a
senior scholar now at the Brownstone Institute. He's also a
physician and a professor Moritus of Epidemiology at Yale School
(00:24):
of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine. He's been
on the podcast before. He was fearlessly on all over
the news networks trying to bring us the truth about
everything during COVID, including vaccines.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
So when I saw this study.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Come out by the Global Vaccine Data Network, I wanted
to have him on to walk.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Us through it.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
It is being called the largest COVID vaccine study to date.
It analyzed ninety nine million people who received the COVID
vaccinations across eight countries and it found a correlation with
things like myercarditis, among other things. So what should we
know about this study, how was it done? And what
do we know today about the COVID vaccines. Also, as
(01:07):
more and more children and young people are encouraged to
get more vaccines than they were previously.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Is that needed? Is that further health or is it
profit driven?
Speaker 2 (01:18):
We're going to dig into all of these issues and
more with a truth teller, a brave man, doctor, Harvey Rish. Well, doctor,
appreciate you taking the time. I saw this vaccine study
that came out and I really wanted to have you
on and have you kind of walk us through it.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
So we appreciate you making the time.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Sure happy to we have.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
I guess they're calling it the largest COVID vaccine study
to date, with a global vaccine data network analyze ninety
nine million people who received the COVID vaccines or vaccinations
across eight countries. I guess just for starter, you know,
what are your takeaways from that study, how it was
analyzed and the findings.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Well, my impression is a study is basically a good one. However,
the authors are all it looks like, all involved in
the public health establishments of their various countries, and so
they have more or less a vested interest to show
that the vaccines were good, not harmful, and so on,
(02:26):
as opposed to a disinterested, independent researcher who might have
done the study. That having been said, I felt the
way that the results were reported, because the analysis was
(02:47):
an average over all age groups and so on for
some of the outcomes that are much more important in
defined age groups. For example, the myocdis outcome, which they
reported to have a relative risk of something like sixfold
after the second dose, and that's a significant symptom, but
(03:12):
that's averaged across all age groups. We know that the
risk of milcarditis is much higher in fifteen to thirty
year old males and fifteen to thirty year old females
for that matter, So what was the increased risk the
relative risk in that age group that when you average
it out over the whole population comes to sixfold. It
(03:34):
might have been twentyfold in that age group, and they
hid that by not providing that specifically. The second thing
is that they did this analysis without providing any more granularity.
(03:56):
This is an extension of what I just said, by age,
by by sex, and so on, of these various factors,
and then they concluded that. Oh and the other thing
is that they only provided relative risks, not absolute risks.
So what we really want to know is not that
myocarditis has a six or twentyfold increased relative risk, but
(04:19):
we want to know in vaccinated males aged fifteen to thirty,
we want to know how many per thousand actually got myocarditis.
Was it one hundred per thousand, was it ten per thousand,
was it one per thousand, Even if that was increased
by five or ten or twenty fold, what matters is
the absolute risk, because if you're going to make a
(04:41):
decision to go and get these vaccines, you need to
know what the risk is for you, not whether it's elevated,
but what the risk is for you. So if the
risk is one percent, that's something really to consider carefully.
If the risk is one in a thousand, well maybe
it's not so bad, you understand so, and they hid
that also.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Isn't that kind of been the problem with all of
this from the beginning in the sense of like even
from the beginning with COVID, of like, Okay, yes, if
you were older or if you had comorbidities, you were
more at risk, but if you're young and healthy, you weren't.
Or with the vaccine, Okay, maybe if you're elderly you
might want to think about getting the vaccine, but if
you're younger and healthy, you know, like they haven't really
(05:23):
delineated this entire time between the specific risk profile of
each group and even you know, with you describing sort
of how the study was done, of not breaking down
those groups when that really matters greatly in terms of
you know, your risk from the vaccine or even back
in the day in the beginning of this, like your
risk from COVID.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
I think that this is much more profound even and
that is that people who got COVID did not need
to be vaccinated. That it's that this was a manipulated
messaging that started off with the vaccines will provide ninety
five percent reduced risk of getting COVID and give you immunity. Well,
(06:09):
but they said nothing about whether you have a risk
of transmitting COVID to others, whether you might get COVID anyway,
and so on. And then after some six to twelve
months and it was became apparent that the vaccines were leaky,
that people were getting COVID even after vaccination, that the
(06:29):
messaging changed to be, oh, it'll keep you from getting
hospitalized or dying from COVID, had nothing to do with transmission,
which was the real issue, and so all of this
got manipulated to suit the benefit of someone some entity
against the public health interests of the general population. And
(06:52):
one ask address who was pushing this narrative that if
the idea is that for many of the vaccine mandates,
the rationale was you'll reduce risk of transmitting the infection
to others if you get vaccinated. Well, if you've already
had COVID, you reduce the risk of transmitting the virus
to others to the same or greater degree than if
(07:14):
you had been vaccinated. But people who had had COVID
were not exempted from getting vaccinated, and the pushback, the
messaging pushback on that was, well, you'll have even more
immunity if you get vaccinated, even after you've had COVID,
which was irrelevant, illogical, because the whole point was you
set a standard by the mandate for how much reduced
(07:34):
risk you might convey by getting vaccinated, and you meet
that standard by an alternative form by having already had COVID.
Not everybody has to map the standard wasn't everybody has
to maximize their immunity. The standard was the threshold that
vaccines were supposed to provide. And so this irrationality, this
lack of logic, was made everybody should have made everybody
(07:57):
sit up and say, wait a minute, this is a fraud.
If if my having had COVID providing me as much
immunity as the vaccines don't qualify for satisfying the vaccine mandate,
then there's something else going on, and this is a fraud.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
Well, what do you think that something else is going on?
You know why?
Speaker 2 (08:17):
I guess why do you think that this entire thing
has just been so illogical from the beginning.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Because I think there was a necessity to vaccine, vaccinate
the entire planet as much as the planet as could
be vaccinated, to show that a vaccine was the end
product of the whole pandemic. And what the reason that
I believed the vaccines had to be the end of
product of the pandemic is that this virus was bioengineered.
(08:49):
There's no question that it was bio engineered. That all
of the scientific evidence, all of the spy intelligence evidence,
everything points to it leaked from the Wuhan Institute of
Virology that it was made under bioengineering engineering techniques that
(09:09):
were developed by Ralph Barrack at the University of North
Carolina and taught to Chinese researchers who took it to
the wib In Muhana and developed it there and it
leaked from there. Now you have to realize that the
development of a bioengineered gain of function virus is essentially
(09:34):
a bioweapon. That gain of function research that makes what
are animal in natural viruses that exist in wildlife that
might spill over into humans. In general, those viruses are
not very severe in humans because they're not adapted to humans.
(09:56):
They haven't been propagated in humans for thousands of virus
generations to become adept at infecting humans. There are adept
at infecting animals, and animals have different cell receptors, different
molecules and so on, different immune receptors and all this
that makes each animal species basically unique as a lock
(10:19):
and key system for a virus and its species and
its animal species. So this virus was perfectly adapted to
humans when it was first released, which means that it
was engineered for that, which means that the development of this,
the research of this qualifies it to be a bioweapon
because of the nature of illness and death that it
(10:41):
caused in the population when it first was released. And
we have a Bioweapons Treaty that President Ford signed in
nineteen seventy five that said we are prohibited in the
whole every country that signed this is prohibited from developing
offensive bioweapons. It's against the law against that treaty. And
the only loophole in that is that small quantities of
(11:05):
bioweapons could be developed for the purposes of making vaccines.
So that means that translate to twenty nineteen, this virus
is released, and it has to be justified. All this
work has to be justified because the end result was
(11:26):
the idea of making a vaccine against it, and nobody
was prepared to make that vaccine because it took a
year for the vaccine to actually to be made and
rolled out. And that means, and this parallels the fact
that there's been this gain of function bioweapons research going
(11:50):
on all over the world even after the Bioweapons Treaty,
all of it claiming to be what's called dual use research,
that it's for the purpose of making vaccines. Yet there's
never been any commercial vaccines for any of these bioweapon viruses. Sure,
we have vaccine research for other pathogens that we know
about that exists, but that are developed as bioweapons. These
(12:12):
are gain of function viruses that the only rationale that
were allowed to have for their development is that we're
making a vaccine. So the vaccine had to come out
to supply the rationale, the evidence that this virus development,
this bioweapons virus development, was for the purpose of making
a vaccine. If there was no vaccine, then this would
(12:35):
have been offensive bioweapon development would have been illegal against
the treaty and the population. The general population would rightfully
have called for a complete end to all bioweapons research
because it has no benefit for It has no military
benefit for US, has no defense benefit for US. It
has only risk because the only benefit would be vaccines.
(12:56):
But if there's no vaccine, then there's no benefit at all.
The vaccine was a charade to justify this offensive bioweapons
research that's been going on for decades and decades. The
biometry industry was required to put this out in order
to justify itself, to keep the general population from being
outraged and shutting this industry down.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
So why do countries engage in it? Then?
Speaker 3 (13:22):
Because they are vested interests who make money off of it.
There are careers that you know, all of these scientists
who claim to be making vaccines for bioweapons, and all
they're basically doing is developing the bioweapons as a preliminary
step to making the vaccines, and their grand applications all
justify it with saying they're going to make a vaccine
(13:43):
for it, but somehow they never get around to making
the vaccines because all the work is spent doing bioweapons research.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
We're going to take a quick break more with doctor
Harvey Rish. Do we over vaccinate or society? I mean,
you know, and if you look at the vaccines that
are recommended to you know, children, to you know, babies,
to young people, they've obviously increased over the years. I mean,
is it like I'm not against all vaccines, right, Like
(14:10):
you look at something like polio. My understanding is that
it has like a fifteen to thirty percent fatality rate
or something like that. That's pretty significant, right, Like polio
has been around for forever.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
So like I'm okay with some but it does seem like.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
Are we being vaccinated to the point we are for
financial reasons or because it's actually in or vested interests
as a people in a population and a country.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
I don't think we can answer that question. This is
controversial because some of the mandated vaccines offer things that
do not have human to human transmission. For example, while
I think tenness is something that people should vaccinate for,
there should not be a mandate for it because tedness
is not transmitted from human to human. So there's no reason.
(14:52):
See the whole idea of vaccine mandates are to prevent transmissions,
not to keep people out of the hospital for dying.
That is their own medical choice. We think that prudent
people would do that, but it's their fundamental freedom of
choice to do that.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
So looking at the COVID vaccine, you know, specifically, I
guess because the media really the way they covered the
story and the study in general, was oh, Okay, you
know there's some impact, right, Like you could have myer
card itis.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
You know, you could have.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
You know, blood clots, et cetera, like these things could
have but it's small. It's you know, it's not a
big deal. It's like they really like downplaying it. I
guess what to what extent are these COVID vaccines.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Like safe? Right? Like what what what is? You know?
Speaker 2 (15:47):
I guess how dangerous? How safe are these COVID vaccines.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
Well, that's a relative standard because we've pulled vaccines from
the marketplace with way way fewer at serious adverse events.
In the past, the standard has been at the level
of a few hundred serious adverse events the vaccine is pulled.
And we know that for the COVID vaccines as of now,
deaths reported to the Various database via ers deaths reported
(16:18):
on day zero one or two. Day zero is when
the day you get the vaccine, day zero one or two.
In that is, twelve thousand people have died on day
zero one or two of getting this vaccine. Now, I
don't know what you think the background rate of people
should have been dug, but it's in the maybe tens
or twenties, not twelve thousand. So we know there's a
(16:42):
major signal there that the number of deaths in the
various reported is some of my thirty seven thousand now,
but going out to longer time stretch after vaccination, and
we've seen all this other data on excess mortality excess
disability that started in twenty twenty one in national US
(17:06):
and UK surveys that we know that these vaccines are
not safe. That it's so what matters is the risk
benefit quantitative relationship, and that was never provided to the
population ever, So that means nobody was even able to
(17:29):
get informed consent if they had even been told, which
they hadn't been, but if they had been told that
there's some risk of serious adverse events like mile chroditis
and other things, they were never told how big that
risk is. It was always gas lit. Oh, it's negligible,
it's minor. The problem is that if you're going to
vaccinate three hundred million people in the US, then something
(17:51):
that's even one in ten thousand becomes in the thousands
of people affected or tens of thousands of people affected,
and that that becomes serious that you know, we can't
have fifty thousand or one hundred thousand or more people
severely injured, neurological diseases, clotting diseases, cancer, and other things
(18:13):
from a vaccine, of which the virus infection that they
would have gotten if the vaccine actually worked, the virus
infactor were gotten, would not have anywhere near the magnitude
of risk that what they experienced from the vaccine. It's
a matter of risk benefit. So in the age groups
(18:33):
that had essentially zero risk of mortality from this, which
is children, young adults. There should never have been any vaccination,
let alone mandated vaccination, because those people, at least the
healthy ones want people who don't have chronic conditions, have
had essentially statistically zero risk of dying from this virus.
(18:54):
So there was no cause. There's no risk benefit benefit
for them, only risk, and that's not appropriate.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Well, you know, that's why I never got it.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
And also just you know, COVID was just never risk
statistically to my life.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
And then obviously, once you know, they kind of.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Started trying to coerce people and they getting it, I
found that really suspicious. And then also as well, when
we saw it wasn't stopping the spread of COVID, it
didn't really make sense to get it period. I guess
one thing I found interesting is that the study also
found it wasn't just the mRNA vaccine that had led to,
you know, some of these adverse reactions. They also found
(19:30):
that the viral vector vaccines were linked to higher blood
clods as well as increased likelihood of Gillian Barr syndrome,
neurological or you know, And so I guess our mRNA
vaccines more inherently dangerous than the viral vector vaccines or
were it's just these vaccines in general. I guess like
(19:51):
that was something I found that was a little bit
interesting because I've always kind of had this, I guess,
negative viewpoint on the m RNA vaccine just because it's
so new. But we've done viral vector of vaccines for
you know, a long time, right, So I don't know,
did that surprise you or what do you kind of like,
what do you what do you derive from that.
Speaker 3 (20:09):
Today? Nothing surprises me. I think that there's different components
of hazard in this. I think that the nanolipelparticle envelope
itself has a hazard. I think that the spike protein
has a hazard. And I think that so the viral
(20:32):
vector and the novavax vaccines, for example, that are not
mRNA per se, those are those have spike toxicity potential problems.
And then nano lipolparticle that has both its own lipid
envelope problem as well as the spike protein problem.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
We've done because am I'm correct, viral vector vaccines are
typical how vaccines are done? Correct or am I I
just want to make sure I got that point correct.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
Well, you're talking about killed viruses basically attenuated viruses. Yes,
that's a classical method of vaccines.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
Okay, all right, I just wanted to make sure I
didn't mess that up for the audience. You know, do
we know?
Speaker 2 (21:19):
You know, one concern I had had about the vaccine
and why I didn't get it too, is just like
questions about like what it could do to a woman's
fertility or even a man's. Do we have any research
on concerns about fertility or is that kind of something
that's still unstudied.
Speaker 3 (21:35):
That is being studied. The CDC people have put out
a few papers on that purporting to claim no hazard
to fertility, whereas there have been large numbers of anecdotal
reports in their early rollout of the vaccines among healthcare workers,
(21:56):
for example, women having various really altered menstrual patterns, excess
amount of flow, days of flow, menstruating on days that
weren't expected to be from their periods, menopausal women having periods,
all sorts of things like that that are symptomatic of
(22:19):
something altered in their reproductive regulation. But we don't know
about whether that matters for fertility or not. There have
been there, I believe there is some evidence to suggest
that birth rates have declined and you know, after the lockdown.
I joke that I would have expected birth rates to
(22:39):
start increasing nine months after the lockdowns, but I don't
think much has been seen, and if anything, it's been
decreased numbers of births. But this is going to require
some much more serious study. And one of the main
problems about the whole pandemic from the beginning is that
the organizations that are tasked are public health organizations that
(23:00):
are tasked with studying treatment, adverice effects, everything about it,
have decidedly chosen not to look at things that might
show damage or harm. They basically make claims of safety
without demonstrating data to prove the safety and the I think,
and they don't do the studies that could show harm.
(23:23):
And that's been the problem, whether that was early, you know,
outpatient treatment of repurposed drugs or these reproductive harms. The
CDC has data on it has clinical chart information on
(23:43):
some two hundred and twenty five I think million Americans.
It has not made any of those data transparent. It
has data on three hundred million Americans insurance claims. So
this is the treatment data that gets filtered into the
insurance payment system and Medicare and Medicaid, and it's not
(24:08):
made any of that public. It's not analyzed any of
that and made that public. So we know that these
agencies have the data to do these studies and they're
not revealing what they know.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
Really starting to believe.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
Also, I kind of laughed myself for a second, but
the population rates just because I like, basically stayed with
my parents for a while and I was like in
their basement alone drinking wine. So I think maybe it's
just too many people like me in that situation. But
you know, I'm really starting to believe that, like the
medical industry, including you know, pharmaceutical and all of it,
(24:42):
is the purpose is more to make money than it
is to bring about health in society or to keep
us healthy.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
Well is that a fair assessment?
Speaker 3 (24:53):
Yes, I mean think about that. The this started way
earlier than COVID. In nineteen ninety one, some investigators, some scientists,
medical scientists, created a discipline they called evidence based medicine.
I thought this was obnoxious, as if medicine before them
(25:17):
was cargo cult science, that there was no science to
medicine before that, which is absurd. So anyway, and what
they did is they claimed that randomized control trials were
the gold standard of evidence. Over time, that statement got
perverted to being randomized control trials are the only acceptable
form of evidence. And what that means is that because
(25:41):
the cost of a randomized control trial is somewhere between
five and one hundred million dollars, that only where there's
a profit motive for testing something, where there's basically a
patent product that will make money large amounts of money
more than the five or hundred men million dollars in
the trial, that that is the only kind of product
(26:05):
that will ever get into the marketplace because of this
corrupted system. Now, I've written a long essay at the
Radstone Institute and readers can look there for it listeners
that talks about this fraud that randomized control trials are
not the gold standard evidence because they're not done in
(26:28):
a way that would make them that, because they need
to have large numbers of outcome events. So, for example,
in the original Pfizer vaccine trial, while there were twenty
two thousand people who got the vaccine, in twenty two
thousand controls who didn't, the number of infections in the
vaccine group was eight. Eight is not a randomized number.
(26:51):
You know, if you flip a coin ten times, you
could get seven heads and three tails or vice versa
very easily happens a third of the time, and so
that means that the randomization didn't work in that study.
That eight is just not randomized, and so biases that
the trial is supposed to remove by being randomized were
not removed because the numbers of the outcomes weren't big enough.
(27:13):
And this happens all over these randomized trials. And at
the same time, the quality of non randomized but control
trials has improved from nineteen ninety one, when the evidence
based medicine people claimed that observational studies non randomized trials
were biased, until today when investigators like myself and others
(27:34):
we know huge amounts about all of the diseases that
we study, and we know what the risk factors are,
and we measure them in the studies and we adjust
for them, and so we clean up all that potential
bias and make our observational non randomized studies very high quality.
Then this has been shown empirically to that non randomized
but controlled studies are evidentially just as good as randomized
(27:57):
trials today, but the the medical industry has convinced the
FDA that only randomized trials count. And what this does
is it lucks in the ability to sell prescription medications
only for things that our patent, that there's a patent interest,
and therefore the ability to get large amounts of money
(28:19):
by charging hundreds of thousands of dollars per pill or
whatever to sell this stuff in the open market. And
this is why repurposed drugs will never get approved for
anything that have large marketplaces because they don't make enough
money and they haven't got the force of randomized trials
(28:40):
to apply to the corrected regulatory system.
Speaker 1 (28:44):
We're going to take a quick break more with doctor
Harvey Rish. What's wild to me too?
Speaker 2 (28:51):
And like what I've learned through all of this and
talking to so many people like you and just so
many senators like raand Paul, and like, what's wild is
that you know, as you or you were pointing out,
we've got a lot of these studies where you know,
the people doing them have an interest in making money
and profiting. And then like we're not gonna like who
can trust a study done by like Pfizer about the
(29:12):
vaccine they want to inject and everyone's arms and make
you know, tons and tons of money off of. But
then also to the extent that government controls studies as well,
in stifles like independent studies and like through grant money.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
And things like that.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
Like I I think it's kind of wild just how
much of an impact the NIH has and the kind
of research that's out there. So it's like you can't
really it's like very hard outside of people like you
bringing truth to light. It's very hard to get the
truth when you've got you know, studies being done by
privateers and then the government coming in and also sort
of dictating what truth gets to light as well.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
So it's like very hard to get the truth.
Speaker 3 (29:49):
Well, the regulatory agencies have been corrupted, they've been captured.
The FDA and CDC have both been captured by industry.
They they are part of this is the There are
user fees for FDA. Sixty percent of the FDA's budget
is paid for by pharma, and as well, there are
private charitable foundations sitting above both the FDA and CDC
(30:13):
that allow people like Bill Gates to send three hundred
million dollars to the CDC and the CDC relies on
that money and is controlled by that money, and this
should never have been allowed. We don't allow people to
pay for government interests to corrupt the government because of
their interests, So this should have been illegal from the start,
and it's still happening today. Also, pharma has a financial
(30:38):
interest in making people halfway better from their treatments. Okay,
if you make somebody halfway better, it looks like your
treatment does something, so it has a place in the marketplace.
On the other hand, if you cure somebody of something,
then you can't keep selling them the medication, so you
(30:59):
make them halfway better, and that means number one, they
stay on your medication for forever. Number two, that the
side effects of your medication generate more money for pharma
to treat that. And so there's an interest in generating
medications that are imperfect and that have their own adverse
effects rather than things that are curative from the beginning.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
You know one thing that's been on my mind since
you had mentioned it earlier. With COVID being a bioweapon,
does that mean the intention of the bioweapon was to
kill as it did kill a lot of elderly people
and people with comorbidities, or are there like consequences that
we're unaware of that we'll be dealing with from having
gotten COVID in the future, because obviously if it was manipulated,
(31:46):
then you know, I would think that, you know, there
would be question, you know, like, so what does that
do to our bodies in the long term?
Speaker 3 (31:54):
I guess well, I can't speak to the intention of
all the scientists who I know who this bioweapons research.
I think they're basically sociopaths. I think they have no
consciences that they think this is just scientific, scientifically interesting
and I can get grants and support myself and make
a career out of this, and that's as far as
they're thinking goes. And I think they are just totally
(32:18):
it's totally irrelevant to them that any of these things
that have got out and damaged tens or hundreds of
millions of people would be well, that's life, you know that.
I think they just don't care. They live in a theoretical,
intellectual world with no common sense. And that's been a
big problem that we've observed in more general society in
(32:39):
the last few decades, but in particular, these virus researchers
making these gain of function viruses. They are basically thinking, Wow,
could we do this? How interesting would this be to
do this? This is this is a scientific challenge, and
we can solve this problem. Actually do it. Wow, wouldn't
that be interesting? And that's as far as the thinking goes.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
It's like they're trying to play god or something to
a degree before we go in. You know, looking back
on all of this with COVID and obviously you know,
you kind of dug into a lot of the problems
that the alphabet agencies have just you know, government medicine
in general. Like, what are some changes do you think
(33:23):
that we could enact as a country that would lead
to just a healthier, more truthful society where you know,
people are being treated in the manner in which is
positive to their health and longevity. I guess you know
what kind of changes could we make? Should we make?
Speaker 3 (33:44):
We need to do two major things and a lot
of minor things. The major things are, we have to
remove all of the We have to remove all of
the pharma advertising from television and public media. That correct
the media that forces the media to spout pharma messaging
(34:05):
because they become addicted to the advertising revenue. So that's
the first thing. No other country in the world allows
pharma advertising that way. The second thing is we have
to end the charitable foundations at the top of the
FDA and the CDC. We have to change the people
who are in charge of the FDA and CDC the
(34:25):
top scientific echelon to people who are not going to
go and become heads or on advisory panels of drug
companies the minute they leave those government regulatory agencies. Basically,
we have to reduce the regulatory corruption from pharma into
(34:46):
those agencies and make the agencies back to just doing
their regulatory jobs based on explicit standards that they have
to use. Those are the major things that have to
be done in order to decouple the regul natory agencies
from pharma itself. Now we have to interfere with the
(35:07):
process whereby regulatory agency scientists, the people who do the
scientific work in FDA and CDC, then the regulatory work
and so on, don't see that their only career improvement
is to go to work in pharma, because then they're
not going to make any adverse judgments against pharma products
because they won't get a job in pharma, so that
(35:27):
has to be removed. And I think that the last
thing is that even though we have monopoly laws on
the books and pharma, there are enough pharma companies so
that not a single one has a monopoly. They are
so large in the amount of money and resources that
(35:50):
they have under their control that they've become de facto
monopolies that they can control large volumes of medical advertising,
paying for advertising in medical journals and so on, medical
journal editors and reviews and all of that that corrupts
the medical journals that they pay for grants and speakers
(36:12):
and docs. They've correct that corrupted almost all of academic
medicine by paying for doctors to give you know, basically
money to shut them up to anything except the pharma messaging.
And you have to realize that when you develop a
successful medication, it costs a billion dollars to develop a
successful medication, because ninety nine out of one hundred fail
(36:33):
and you have to go through all one hundred to
get the one that works, and so a billion dollars
for the scientific work, and then there's two billion dollars
you have to spend to corrupt the marketplace by paying
off doctors and academic doctors all over the world, and grants,
speaking fees, teaching fees, all this stuff to make doctors
aligned with your messaging. That has to end, That has
(36:55):
to largely end. And it's all of this gigantic corrupting
influence that is the facto monopoly that that is what
has to be changed in order to make the whole
regulatory and marketplace system more objective.
Speaker 2 (37:12):
Sorry, if you don't mind, I'd just like to ad so.
I know that you specialize in cancer as well. We're saying,
you know, rates going up in younger adults. Why do
you think that is?
Speaker 3 (37:26):
I think that we don't have a good handle on
rates yet we do have a lot of reports of
individuals who have had unusual cancers at younger ages. And
one thing that's very good in the US is we
have a very large cancer reporting system and this is
(37:49):
the SEER system Seer Surveillance, Epidemiology and Results that were
set up I think in the nineteen seventies to collect
information on as a reportable disease in most states, so
this comes from twenty some states and large metropolitan areas
to collect information about cancer cases as they occur. It
(38:11):
takes two to three years to get all of these
data harmonized and cleaned up and available, and it's online
on the NCI websites that you can probe these cancer
rates by cancer type, by age group, by year, by
metropolitan area, by race, sex, and so on and look
(38:35):
at the rates. And so we don't have it yet
from twenty twenty one and twenty twenty two. It's just
it's going to be a while before it comes online.
The second thing is that cancer takes some years to develop.
What you see at the very beginning if there's an
increased risk of cancer, are the blood cancers, leukemia's lymphomas,
You see those after two to three years because they're
(38:57):
shorter latency. Lung cancer is five years. Solid cancers are
ten to twenty to thirty years. It takes. You'll also
see cancers that have gone into remission that come out
of remission, so for example, breast cancer that has been
in a remission for five or ten years and then
after a vaccination suddenly comes out of remission. So we've
seen anecdotal reports of some of these things, but we
(39:19):
don't have a quantitative estimate yet on these. The generation
of new cancers based on the vaccine exposures.
Speaker 2 (39:29):
Okay, Doctor Harvey Rish, fascinating. Really appreciate you being so brave.
I know it's not easy, and I know a lot
of you guys who spoke the truth have had to,
you know, deal with a lot of crap to put
it lightly. Appreciate you being a truth teller and for
taking so much time to come on the show.
Speaker 1 (39:46):
Really do it's my pleasure.
Speaker 3 (39:47):
Thanks for covering this.
Speaker 1 (39:48):
It was doctor Harvey Rish.
Speaker 2 (39:49):
Appreciate him taking the time to come on the show.
Speaker 1 (39:52):
I mean that was powerful.
Speaker 2 (39:54):
Like I don't know about you guys listening at home,
but I was in awe of what he was saying.
So appreciate his bravery, Appreciate his truth telling. Appreciate you
guys for listening. Also with one of the things, John Casting,
my producer, for putting the show together every Monday and Thursday,
but you can listen throughout the week until next time.
Posed a lot.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
It exposed people, it exposed industries, it exposed the so
called experts, it exposed our government, and we were fortunate
throughout it all to have some brave truth tellers. And
one of those individuals is doctor Harvey Risch. He's a
senior scholar now at the Brownstone Institute. He's also a
physician and a professor Moritus of Epidemiology at Yale School
(00:24):
of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine. He's been
on the podcast before. He was fearlessly on all over
the news networks trying to bring us the truth about
everything during COVID, including vaccines.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
So when I saw this study.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Come out by the Global Vaccine Data Network, I wanted
to have him on to walk.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Us through it.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
It is being called the largest COVID vaccine study to date.
It analyzed ninety nine million people who received the COVID
vaccinations across eight countries and it found a correlation with
things like myercarditis, among other things. So what should we
know about this study, how was it done? And what
do we know today about the COVID vaccines. Also, as
(01:07):
more and more children and young people are encouraged to
get more vaccines than they were previously.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Is that needed? Is that further health or is it
profit driven?
Speaker 2 (01:18):
We're going to dig into all of these issues and
more with a truth teller, a brave man, doctor, Harvey Rish. Well, doctor,
appreciate you taking the time. I saw this vaccine study
that came out and I really wanted to have you
on and have you kind of walk us through it.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
So we appreciate you making the time.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Sure happy to we have.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
I guess they're calling it the largest COVID vaccine study
to date, with a global vaccine data network analyze ninety
nine million people who received the COVID vaccines or vaccinations
across eight countries. I guess just for starter, you know,
what are your takeaways from that study, how it was
analyzed and the findings.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Well, my impression is a study is basically a good one. However,
the authors are all it looks like, all involved in
the public health establishments of their various countries, and so
they have more or less a vested interest to show
that the vaccines were good, not harmful, and so on,
(02:26):
as opposed to a disinterested, independent researcher who might have
done the study. That having been said, I felt the
way that the results were reported, because the analysis was
(02:47):
an average over all age groups and so on for
some of the outcomes that are much more important in
defined age groups. For example, the myocdis outcome, which they
reported to have a relative risk of something like sixfold
after the second dose, and that's a significant symptom, but
(03:12):
that's averaged across all age groups. We know that the
risk of milcarditis is much higher in fifteen to thirty
year old males and fifteen to thirty year old females
for that matter, So what was the increased risk the
relative risk in that age group that when you average
it out over the whole population comes to sixfold. It
(03:34):
might have been twentyfold in that age group, and they
hid that by not providing that specifically. The second thing
is that they did this analysis without providing any more granularity.
(03:56):
This is an extension of what I just said, by age,
by by sex, and so on, of these various factors,
and then they concluded that. Oh and the other thing
is that they only provided relative risks, not absolute risks.
So what we really want to know is not that
myocarditis has a six or twentyfold increased relative risk, but
(04:19):
we want to know in vaccinated males aged fifteen to thirty,
we want to know how many per thousand actually got myocarditis.
Was it one hundred per thousand, was it ten per thousand,
was it one per thousand, Even if that was increased
by five or ten or twenty fold, what matters is
the absolute risk, because if you're going to make a
(04:41):
decision to go and get these vaccines, you need to
know what the risk is for you, not whether it's elevated,
but what the risk is for you. So if the
risk is one percent, that's something really to consider carefully.
If the risk is one in a thousand, well maybe
it's not so bad, you understand so, and they hid
that also.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Isn't that kind of been the problem with all of
this from the beginning in the sense of like even
from the beginning with COVID, of like, Okay, yes, if
you were older or if you had comorbidities, you were
more at risk, but if you're young and healthy, you weren't.
Or with the vaccine, Okay, maybe if you're elderly you
might want to think about getting the vaccine, but if
you're younger and healthy, you know, like they haven't really
(05:23):
delineated this entire time between the specific risk profile of
each group and even you know, with you describing sort
of how the study was done, of not breaking down
those groups when that really matters greatly in terms of
you know, your risk from the vaccine or even back
in the day in the beginning of this, like your
risk from COVID.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
I think that this is much more profound even and
that is that people who got COVID did not need
to be vaccinated. That it's that this was a manipulated
messaging that started off with the vaccines will provide ninety
five percent reduced risk of getting COVID and give you immunity. Well,
(06:09):
but they said nothing about whether you have a risk
of transmitting COVID to others, whether you might get COVID anyway,
and so on. And then after some six to twelve
months and it was became apparent that the vaccines were leaky,
that people were getting COVID even after vaccination, that the
(06:29):
messaging changed to be, oh, it'll keep you from getting
hospitalized or dying from COVID, had nothing to do with transmission,
which was the real issue, and so all of this
got manipulated to suit the benefit of someone some entity
against the public health interests of the general population. And
(06:52):
one ask address who was pushing this narrative that if
the idea is that for many of the vaccine mandates,
the rationale was you'll reduce risk of transmitting the infection
to others if you get vaccinated. Well, if you've already
had COVID, you reduce the risk of transmitting the virus
to others to the same or greater degree than if
(07:14):
you had been vaccinated. But people who had had COVID
were not exempted from getting vaccinated, and the pushback, the
messaging pushback on that was, well, you'll have even more
immunity if you get vaccinated, even after you've had COVID,
which was irrelevant, illogical, because the whole point was you
set a standard by the mandate for how much reduced
(07:34):
risk you might convey by getting vaccinated, and you meet
that standard by an alternative form by having already had COVID.
Not everybody has to map the standard wasn't everybody has
to maximize their immunity. The standard was the threshold that
vaccines were supposed to provide. And so this irrationality, this
lack of logic, was made everybody should have made everybody
(07:57):
sit up and say, wait a minute, this is a fraud.
If if my having had COVID providing me as much
immunity as the vaccines don't qualify for satisfying the vaccine mandate,
then there's something else going on, and this is a fraud.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
Well, what do you think that something else is going on?
You know why?
Speaker 2 (08:17):
I guess why do you think that this entire thing
has just been so illogical from the beginning.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Because I think there was a necessity to vaccine, vaccinate
the entire planet as much as the planet as could
be vaccinated, to show that a vaccine was the end
product of the whole pandemic. And what the reason that
I believed the vaccines had to be the end of
product of the pandemic is that this virus was bioengineered.
(08:49):
There's no question that it was bio engineered. That all
of the scientific evidence, all of the spy intelligence evidence,
everything points to it leaked from the Wuhan Institute of
Virology that it was made under bioengineering engineering techniques that
(09:09):
were developed by Ralph Barrack at the University of North
Carolina and taught to Chinese researchers who took it to
the wib In Muhana and developed it there and it
leaked from there. Now you have to realize that the
development of a bioengineered gain of function virus is essentially
(09:34):
a bioweapon. That gain of function research that makes what
are animal in natural viruses that exist in wildlife that
might spill over into humans. In general, those viruses are
not very severe in humans because they're not adapted to humans.
(09:56):
They haven't been propagated in humans for thousands of virus
generations to become adept at infecting humans. There are adept
at infecting animals, and animals have different cell receptors, different
molecules and so on, different immune receptors and all this
that makes each animal species basically unique as a lock
(10:19):
and key system for a virus and its species and
its animal species. So this virus was perfectly adapted to
humans when it was first released, which means that it
was engineered for that, which means that the development of this,
the research of this qualifies it to be a bioweapon
because of the nature of illness and death that it
(10:41):
caused in the population when it first was released. And
we have a Bioweapons Treaty that President Ford signed in
nineteen seventy five that said we are prohibited in the
whole every country that signed this is prohibited from developing
offensive bioweapons. It's against the law against that treaty. And
the only loophole in that is that small quantities of
(11:05):
bioweapons could be developed for the purposes of making vaccines.
So that means that translate to twenty nineteen, this virus
is released, and it has to be justified. All this
work has to be justified because the end result was
(11:26):
the idea of making a vaccine against it, and nobody
was prepared to make that vaccine because it took a
year for the vaccine to actually to be made and
rolled out. And that means, and this parallels the fact
that there's been this gain of function bioweapons research going
(11:50):
on all over the world even after the Bioweapons Treaty,
all of it claiming to be what's called dual use research,
that it's for the purpose of making vaccines. Yet there's
never been any commercial vaccines for any of these bioweapon viruses. Sure,
we have vaccine research for other pathogens that we know
about that exists, but that are developed as bioweapons. These
(12:12):
are gain of function viruses that the only rationale that
were allowed to have for their development is that we're
making a vaccine. So the vaccine had to come out
to supply the rationale, the evidence that this virus development,
this bioweapons virus development, was for the purpose of making
a vaccine. If there was no vaccine, then this would
(12:35):
have been offensive bioweapon development would have been illegal against
the treaty and the population. The general population would rightfully
have called for a complete end to all bioweapons research
because it has no benefit for It has no military
benefit for US, has no defense benefit for US. It
has only risk because the only benefit would be vaccines.
(12:56):
But if there's no vaccine, then there's no benefit at all.
The vaccine was a charade to justify this offensive bioweapons
research that's been going on for decades and decades. The
biometry industry was required to put this out in order
to justify itself, to keep the general population from being
outraged and shutting this industry down.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
So why do countries engage in it? Then?
Speaker 3 (13:22):
Because they are vested interests who make money off of it.
There are careers that you know, all of these scientists
who claim to be making vaccines for bioweapons, and all
they're basically doing is developing the bioweapons as a preliminary
step to making the vaccines, and their grand applications all
justify it with saying they're going to make a vaccine
(13:43):
for it, but somehow they never get around to making
the vaccines because all the work is spent doing bioweapons research.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
We're going to take a quick break more with doctor
Harvey Rish. Do we over vaccinate or society? I mean,
you know, and if you look at the vaccines that
are recommended to you know, children, to you know, babies,
to young people, they've obviously increased over the years. I mean,
is it like I'm not against all vaccines, right, Like
(14:10):
you look at something like polio. My understanding is that
it has like a fifteen to thirty percent fatality rate
or something like that. That's pretty significant, right, Like polio
has been around for forever.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
So like I'm okay with some but it does seem like.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
Are we being vaccinated to the point we are for
financial reasons or because it's actually in or vested interests
as a people in a population and a country.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
I don't think we can answer that question. This is
controversial because some of the mandated vaccines offer things that
do not have human to human transmission. For example, while
I think tenness is something that people should vaccinate for,
there should not be a mandate for it because tedness
is not transmitted from human to human. So there's no reason.
(14:52):
See the whole idea of vaccine mandates are to prevent transmissions,
not to keep people out of the hospital for dying.
That is their own medical choice. We think that prudent
people would do that, but it's their fundamental freedom of
choice to do that.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
So looking at the COVID vaccine, you know, specifically, I
guess because the media really the way they covered the
story and the study in general, was oh, Okay, you
know there's some impact, right, Like you could have myer
card itis.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
You know, you could have.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
You know, blood clots, et cetera, like these things could
have but it's small. It's you know, it's not a
big deal. It's like they really like downplaying it. I
guess what to what extent are these COVID vaccines.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Like safe? Right? Like what what what is? You know?
Speaker 2 (15:47):
I guess how dangerous? How safe are these COVID vaccines.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
Well, that's a relative standard because we've pulled vaccines from
the marketplace with way way fewer at serious adverse events.
In the past, the standard has been at the level
of a few hundred serious adverse events the vaccine is pulled.
And we know that for the COVID vaccines as of now,
deaths reported to the Various database via ers deaths reported
(16:18):
on day zero one or two. Day zero is when
the day you get the vaccine, day zero one or two.
In that is, twelve thousand people have died on day
zero one or two of getting this vaccine. Now, I
don't know what you think the background rate of people
should have been dug, but it's in the maybe tens
or twenties, not twelve thousand. So we know there's a
(16:42):
major signal there that the number of deaths in the
various reported is some of my thirty seven thousand now,
but going out to longer time stretch after vaccination, and
we've seen all this other data on excess mortality excess
disability that started in twenty twenty one in national US
(17:06):
and UK surveys that we know that these vaccines are
not safe. That it's so what matters is the risk
benefit quantitative relationship, and that was never provided to the
population ever, So that means nobody was even able to
(17:29):
get informed consent if they had even been told, which
they hadn't been, but if they had been told that
there's some risk of serious adverse events like mile chroditis
and other things, they were never told how big that
risk is. It was always gas lit. Oh, it's negligible,
it's minor. The problem is that if you're going to
vaccinate three hundred million people in the US, then something
(17:51):
that's even one in ten thousand becomes in the thousands
of people affected or tens of thousands of people affected,
and that that becomes serious that you know, we can't
have fifty thousand or one hundred thousand or more people
severely injured, neurological diseases, clotting diseases, cancer, and other things
(18:13):
from a vaccine, of which the virus infection that they
would have gotten if the vaccine actually worked, the virus
infactor were gotten, would not have anywhere near the magnitude
of risk that what they experienced from the vaccine. It's
a matter of risk benefit. So in the age groups
(18:33):
that had essentially zero risk of mortality from this, which
is children, young adults. There should never have been any vaccination,
let alone mandated vaccination, because those people, at least the
healthy ones want people who don't have chronic conditions, have
had essentially statistically zero risk of dying from this virus.
(18:54):
So there was no cause. There's no risk benefit benefit
for them, only risk, and that's not appropriate.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Well, you know, that's why I never got it.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
And also just you know, COVID was just never risk
statistically to my life.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
And then obviously, once you know, they kind of.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Started trying to coerce people and they getting it, I
found that really suspicious. And then also as well, when
we saw it wasn't stopping the spread of COVID, it
didn't really make sense to get it period. I guess
one thing I found interesting is that the study also
found it wasn't just the mRNA vaccine that had led to,
you know, some of these adverse reactions. They also found
(19:30):
that the viral vector vaccines were linked to higher blood
clods as well as increased likelihood of Gillian Barr syndrome,
neurological or you know, And so I guess our mRNA
vaccines more inherently dangerous than the viral vector vaccines or
were it's just these vaccines in general. I guess like
(19:51):
that was something I found that was a little bit
interesting because I've always kind of had this, I guess,
negative viewpoint on the m RNA vaccine just because it's
so new. But we've done viral vector of vaccines for
you know, a long time, right, So I don't know,
did that surprise you or what do you kind of like,
what do you what do you derive from that.
Speaker 3 (20:09):
Today? Nothing surprises me. I think that there's different components
of hazard in this. I think that the nanolipelparticle envelope
itself has a hazard. I think that the spike protein
has a hazard. And I think that so the viral
(20:32):
vector and the novavax vaccines, for example, that are not
mRNA per se, those are those have spike toxicity potential problems.
And then nano lipolparticle that has both its own lipid
envelope problem as well as the spike protein problem.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
We've done because am I'm correct, viral vector vaccines are
typical how vaccines are done? Correct or am I I
just want to make sure I got that point correct.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
Well, you're talking about killed viruses basically attenuated viruses. Yes,
that's a classical method of vaccines.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
Okay, all right, I just wanted to make sure I
didn't mess that up for the audience. You know, do
we know?
Speaker 2 (21:19):
You know, one concern I had had about the vaccine
and why I didn't get it too, is just like
questions about like what it could do to a woman's
fertility or even a man's. Do we have any research
on concerns about fertility or is that kind of something
that's still unstudied.
Speaker 3 (21:35):
That is being studied. The CDC people have put out
a few papers on that purporting to claim no hazard
to fertility, whereas there have been large numbers of anecdotal
reports in their early rollout of the vaccines among healthcare workers,
(21:56):
for example, women having various really altered menstrual patterns, excess
amount of flow, days of flow, menstruating on days that
weren't expected to be from their periods, menopausal women having periods,
all sorts of things like that that are symptomatic of
(22:19):
something altered in their reproductive regulation. But we don't know
about whether that matters for fertility or not. There have
been there, I believe there is some evidence to suggest
that birth rates have declined and you know, after the lockdown.
I joke that I would have expected birth rates to
(22:39):
start increasing nine months after the lockdowns, but I don't
think much has been seen, and if anything, it's been
decreased numbers of births. But this is going to require
some much more serious study. And one of the main
problems about the whole pandemic from the beginning is that
the organizations that are tasked are public health organizations that
(23:00):
are tasked with studying treatment, adverice effects, everything about it,
have decidedly chosen not to look at things that might
show damage or harm. They basically make claims of safety
without demonstrating data to prove the safety and the I think,
and they don't do the studies that could show harm.
(23:23):
And that's been the problem, whether that was early, you know,
outpatient treatment of repurposed drugs or these reproductive harms. The
CDC has data on it has clinical chart information on
(23:43):
some two hundred and twenty five I think million Americans.
It has not made any of those data transparent. It
has data on three hundred million Americans insurance claims. So
this is the treatment data that gets filtered into the
insurance payment system and Medicare and Medicaid, and it's not
(24:08):
made any of that public. It's not analyzed any of
that and made that public. So we know that these
agencies have the data to do these studies and they're
not revealing what they know.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
Really starting to believe.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
Also, I kind of laughed myself for a second, but
the population rates just because I like, basically stayed with
my parents for a while and I was like in
their basement alone drinking wine. So I think maybe it's
just too many people like me in that situation. But
you know, I'm really starting to believe that, like the
medical industry, including you know, pharmaceutical and all of it,
(24:42):
is the purpose is more to make money than it
is to bring about health in society or to keep
us healthy.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
Well is that a fair assessment?
Speaker 3 (24:53):
Yes, I mean think about that. The this started way
earlier than COVID. In nineteen ninety one, some investigators, some scientists,
medical scientists, created a discipline they called evidence based medicine.
I thought this was obnoxious, as if medicine before them
(25:17):
was cargo cult science, that there was no science to
medicine before that, which is absurd. So anyway, and what
they did is they claimed that randomized control trials were
the gold standard of evidence. Over time, that statement got
perverted to being randomized control trials are the only acceptable
form of evidence. And what that means is that because
(25:41):
the cost of a randomized control trial is somewhere between
five and one hundred million dollars, that only where there's
a profit motive for testing something, where there's basically a
patent product that will make money large amounts of money
more than the five or hundred men million dollars in
the trial, that that is the only kind of product
(26:05):
that will ever get into the marketplace because of this
corrupted system. Now, I've written a long essay at the
Radstone Institute and readers can look there for it listeners
that talks about this fraud that randomized control trials are
not the gold standard evidence because they're not done in
(26:28):
a way that would make them that, because they need
to have large numbers of outcome events. So, for example,
in the original Pfizer vaccine trial, while there were twenty
two thousand people who got the vaccine, in twenty two
thousand controls who didn't, the number of infections in the
vaccine group was eight. Eight is not a randomized number.
(26:51):
You know, if you flip a coin ten times, you
could get seven heads and three tails or vice versa
very easily happens a third of the time, and so
that means that the randomization didn't work in that study.
That eight is just not randomized, and so biases that
the trial is supposed to remove by being randomized were
not removed because the numbers of the outcomes weren't big enough.
(27:13):
And this happens all over these randomized trials. And at
the same time, the quality of non randomized but control
trials has improved from nineteen ninety one, when the evidence
based medicine people claimed that observational studies non randomized trials
were biased, until today when investigators like myself and others
(27:34):
we know huge amounts about all of the diseases that
we study, and we know what the risk factors are,
and we measure them in the studies and we adjust
for them, and so we clean up all that potential
bias and make our observational non randomized studies very high quality.
Then this has been shown empirically to that non randomized
but controlled studies are evidentially just as good as randomized
(27:57):
trials today, but the the medical industry has convinced the
FDA that only randomized trials count. And what this does
is it lucks in the ability to sell prescription medications
only for things that our patent, that there's a patent interest,
and therefore the ability to get large amounts of money
(28:19):
by charging hundreds of thousands of dollars per pill or
whatever to sell this stuff in the open market. And
this is why repurposed drugs will never get approved for
anything that have large marketplaces because they don't make enough
money and they haven't got the force of randomized trials
(28:40):
to apply to the corrected regulatory system.
Speaker 1 (28:44):
We're going to take a quick break more with doctor
Harvey Rish. What's wild to me too?
Speaker 2 (28:51):
And like what I've learned through all of this and
talking to so many people like you and just so
many senators like raand Paul, and like, what's wild is
that you know, as you or you were pointing out,
we've got a lot of these studies where you know,
the people doing them have an interest in making money
and profiting. And then like we're not gonna like who
can trust a study done by like Pfizer about the
(29:12):
vaccine they want to inject and everyone's arms and make
you know, tons and tons of money off of. But
then also to the extent that government controls studies as well,
in stifles like independent studies and like through grant money.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
And things like that.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
Like I I think it's kind of wild just how
much of an impact the NIH has and the kind
of research that's out there. So it's like you can't
really it's like very hard outside of people like you
bringing truth to light. It's very hard to get the
truth when you've got you know, studies being done by
privateers and then the government coming in and also sort
of dictating what truth gets to light as well.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
So it's like very hard to get the truth.
Speaker 3 (29:49):
Well, the regulatory agencies have been corrupted, they've been captured.
The FDA and CDC have both been captured by industry.
They they are part of this is the There are
user fees for FDA. Sixty percent of the FDA's budget
is paid for by pharma, and as well, there are
private charitable foundations sitting above both the FDA and CDC
(30:13):
that allow people like Bill Gates to send three hundred
million dollars to the CDC and the CDC relies on
that money and is controlled by that money, and this
should never have been allowed. We don't allow people to
pay for government interests to corrupt the government because of
their interests, So this should have been illegal from the start,
and it's still happening today. Also, pharma has a financial
(30:38):
interest in making people halfway better from their treatments. Okay,
if you make somebody halfway better, it looks like your
treatment does something, so it has a place in the marketplace.
On the other hand, if you cure somebody of something,
then you can't keep selling them the medication, so you
(30:59):
make them halfway better, and that means number one, they
stay on your medication for forever. Number two, that the
side effects of your medication generate more money for pharma
to treat that. And so there's an interest in generating
medications that are imperfect and that have their own adverse
effects rather than things that are curative from the beginning.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
You know one thing that's been on my mind since
you had mentioned it earlier. With COVID being a bioweapon,
does that mean the intention of the bioweapon was to
kill as it did kill a lot of elderly people
and people with comorbidities, or are there like consequences that
we're unaware of that we'll be dealing with from having
gotten COVID in the future, because obviously if it was manipulated,
(31:46):
then you know, I would think that, you know, there
would be question, you know, like, so what does that
do to our bodies in the long term?
Speaker 3 (31:54):
I guess well, I can't speak to the intention of
all the scientists who I know who this bioweapons research.
I think they're basically sociopaths. I think they have no
consciences that they think this is just scientific, scientifically interesting
and I can get grants and support myself and make
a career out of this, and that's as far as
they're thinking goes. And I think they are just totally
(32:18):
it's totally irrelevant to them that any of these things
that have got out and damaged tens or hundreds of
millions of people would be well, that's life, you know that.
I think they just don't care. They live in a theoretical,
intellectual world with no common sense. And that's been a
big problem that we've observed in more general society in
(32:39):
the last few decades, but in particular, these virus researchers
making these gain of function viruses. They are basically thinking, Wow,
could we do this? How interesting would this be to
do this? This is this is a scientific challenge, and
we can solve this problem. Actually do it. Wow, wouldn't
that be interesting? And that's as far as the thinking goes.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
It's like they're trying to play god or something to
a degree before we go in. You know, looking back
on all of this with COVID and obviously you know,
you kind of dug into a lot of the problems
that the alphabet agencies have just you know, government medicine
in general. Like, what are some changes do you think
(33:23):
that we could enact as a country that would lead
to just a healthier, more truthful society where you know,
people are being treated in the manner in which is
positive to their health and longevity. I guess you know
what kind of changes could we make? Should we make?
Speaker 3 (33:44):
We need to do two major things and a lot
of minor things. The major things are, we have to
remove all of the We have to remove all of
the pharma advertising from television and public media. That correct
the media that forces the media to spout pharma messaging
(34:05):
because they become addicted to the advertising revenue. So that's
the first thing. No other country in the world allows
pharma advertising that way. The second thing is we have
to end the charitable foundations at the top of the
FDA and the CDC. We have to change the people
who are in charge of the FDA and CDC the
(34:25):
top scientific echelon to people who are not going to
go and become heads or on advisory panels of drug
companies the minute they leave those government regulatory agencies. Basically,
we have to reduce the regulatory corruption from pharma into
(34:46):
those agencies and make the agencies back to just doing
their regulatory jobs based on explicit standards that they have
to use. Those are the major things that have to
be done in order to decouple the regul natory agencies
from pharma itself. Now we have to interfere with the
(35:07):
process whereby regulatory agency scientists, the people who do the
scientific work in FDA and CDC, then the regulatory work
and so on, don't see that their only career improvement
is to go to work in pharma, because then they're
not going to make any adverse judgments against pharma products
because they won't get a job in pharma, so that
(35:27):
has to be removed. And I think that the last
thing is that even though we have monopoly laws on
the books and pharma, there are enough pharma companies so
that not a single one has a monopoly. They are
so large in the amount of money and resources that
(35:50):
they have under their control that they've become de facto
monopolies that they can control large volumes of medical advertising,
paying for advertising in medical journals and so on, medical
journal editors and reviews and all of that that corrupts
the medical journals that they pay for grants and speakers
(36:12):
and docs. They've correct that corrupted almost all of academic
medicine by paying for doctors to give you know, basically
money to shut them up to anything except the pharma messaging.
And you have to realize that when you develop a
successful medication, it costs a billion dollars to develop a
successful medication, because ninety nine out of one hundred fail
(36:33):
and you have to go through all one hundred to
get the one that works, and so a billion dollars
for the scientific work, and then there's two billion dollars
you have to spend to corrupt the marketplace by paying
off doctors and academic doctors all over the world, and grants,
speaking fees, teaching fees, all this stuff to make doctors
aligned with your messaging. That has to end, That has
(36:55):
to largely end. And it's all of this gigantic corrupting
influence that is the facto monopoly that that is what
has to be changed in order to make the whole
regulatory and marketplace system more objective.
Speaker 2 (37:12):
Sorry, if you don't mind, I'd just like to ad so.
I know that you specialize in cancer as well. We're saying,
you know, rates going up in younger adults. Why do
you think that is?
Speaker 3 (37:26):
I think that we don't have a good handle on
rates yet we do have a lot of reports of
individuals who have had unusual cancers at younger ages. And
one thing that's very good in the US is we
have a very large cancer reporting system and this is
(37:49):
the SEER system Seer Surveillance, Epidemiology and Results that were
set up I think in the nineteen seventies to collect
information on as a reportable disease in most states, so
this comes from twenty some states and large metropolitan areas
to collect information about cancer cases as they occur. It
(38:11):
takes two to three years to get all of these
data harmonized and cleaned up and available, and it's online
on the NCI websites that you can probe these cancer
rates by cancer type, by age group, by year, by
metropolitan area, by race, sex, and so on and look
(38:35):
at the rates. And so we don't have it yet
from twenty twenty one and twenty twenty two. It's just
it's going to be a while before it comes online.
The second thing is that cancer takes some years to develop.
What you see at the very beginning if there's an
increased risk of cancer, are the blood cancers, leukemia's lymphomas,
You see those after two to three years because they're
(38:57):
shorter latency. Lung cancer is five years. Solid cancers are
ten to twenty to thirty years. It takes. You'll also
see cancers that have gone into remission that come out
of remission, so for example, breast cancer that has been
in a remission for five or ten years and then
after a vaccination suddenly comes out of remission. So we've
seen anecdotal reports of some of these things, but we
(39:19):
don't have a quantitative estimate yet on these. The generation
of new cancers based on the vaccine exposures.
Speaker 2 (39:29):
Okay, Doctor Harvey Rish, fascinating. Really appreciate you being so brave.
I know it's not easy, and I know a lot
of you guys who spoke the truth have had to,
you know, deal with a lot of crap to put
it lightly. Appreciate you being a truth teller and for
taking so much time to come on the show.
Speaker 1 (39:46):
Really do it's my pleasure.
Speaker 3 (39:47):
Thanks for covering this.
Speaker 1 (39:48):
It was doctor Harvey Rish.
Speaker 2 (39:49):
Appreciate him taking the time to come on the show.
Speaker 1 (39:52):
I mean that was powerful.
Speaker 2 (39:54):
Like I don't know about you guys listening at home,
but I was in awe of what he was saying.
So appreciate his bravery, Appreciate his truth telling. Appreciate you
guys for listening. Also with one of the things, John Casting,
my producer, for putting the show together every Monday and Thursday,
but you can listen throughout the week until next time.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.