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