All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 1, 2023 - Blood Money
01:02:07
The Fake Covid Trials That Created The Covid Lies with Dr. Harvey Risch (Eps132)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, let's get started. Let's go.
So,
Dr. Rish, how are you doing, sir?
Great to be with you today. Thank you for coming on to our podcast.
So, Dr. Risch, tell us about your background, who you are, and what you are currently doing.
I went to medical school, got my medical degree, but I spent the last year working in the laboratory.
And after medical school, I went and got a PhD in biomathematics, and my concentration area was mathematical modeling of infectious epidemics.
And after that, then I went and did a postdoc in epidemiology at the University of Washington and got my first job in Toronto, where I spent eight years doing cancer research.
And I published on my PhD on mathematical modeling of infectious epidemics and then moved into cancer research.
and after eight years in Toronto moved to Yale where I have been for 32 or so years. I became emeritus professor last year and still actively working and still saw some grants going on and been doing COVID work and during the COVID era. I got pulled into COVID because I'm a member of the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering and the academy set up a panel to help the governor
to reopen the state after the initial lockdowns.
Now, we weren't the official governor committee.
The governor had his own committee of like-minded people not thinking anything different than everywhere across the country, as they were instructed to.
But we were an ad hoc, out-of-the-box committee.
So there was me, there was my dean, who's a pediatric epidemiologist, an AIDS epidemiologist.
There was a cardiologist, a physicist, a clinical psychologist, a jet plane engine designer who knows about airflow things, and a number of us.
And so we were tasked with coming up with other ways of thinking about the pandemic and its management.
And my job in that was to look at outpatient treatment methods.
At the time, this was now going back to April of 2020, there were only two candidate medications that people were talking about That was hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir.
At the time, remdesivir was a hospital treatment, but it was unclear whether it would eventually be able to be used in outpatients, and so it was part of my purview.
And hydroxychloroquine had already been used by that point in very large scale by doctors across the country and with outstandingly good response in keeping people out of the hospital And out and from dying.
And so I reviewed the literature very extensively in April of 2020, wrote a review paper talking about both the efficacy and safety of these medications and their understanding by different scientific communities.
In other words, how epidemiologists understand the evidence for these and why lab scientists Apparently don't understand epidemiology and come to different conclusions that are actually wrong from epidemiologic research.
So this paper was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology at the end of May 2020.
It got a huge amount of attention.
It's the most attention-given paper ever published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in its more than 100-year history.
It's been downloaded more than 90,000 times, looked at 160,000-plus.
I don't even keep track of it anymore.
And from it, I wrote an op-ed in Newsweek saying, look, here's a medication that keeps people from dying.
It has essentially no adverse effects.
It's been used in tens of billions of doses over more than half a century in hundreds of millions of people for prevention of malaria, for use in rheumatoid arthritis and other immune conditions completely safely.
And everybody knows that this is a safe medication.
And at that time, since there were no other medications being used for outpatients that it would displace, there was no opportunity cost.
And this medication cost 40 cents a day to take.
And so I said, you know, here's something that's cutting mortality by 95% or 90% or something along those lines.
And has complete safety information, has been in widespread use for ages.
There's no reason not to use it.
It's not displacing anything.
Until we come up with something that works better, there's no reason not to use it.
And of course, this got immediate and fraudulent pushback.
By saying that, oh, we haven't proved it in randomized controlled trials, therefore we can't use it.
This, of course, ignores the fact that in the middle of a pandemic, when you have no alternatives, when you're sending people home with no treatment other than saying, well, if you crash, then come back to the hospital and we'll admit you, that's not treatment.
That's abdication of responsibility by doctors.
Anyway, so in that context, all you need to show is...
Safety. You do not need to prove efficacy.
And yet, all these fraudulent messages of, well, we need multiple large randomized trials before we could ever recommend using this, is utter nonsense.
We had doctors who have been using it then, who have been using it since.
More than 300,000 Americans were treated with this medication by telemedicine groups over the first couple years of the pandemic.
Almost all of them, within You know, a handful, a dozen or so that didn't survive.
Everybody else survived. And this is something that is a fact of nature that cannot be removed by, you know, propaganda casting aspersions or smearing the efficacy of this medication when used in outpatients.
And that is the way the science.
That is the nature of the science here.
And it's not just me saying it.
The collected research, since the original paper was published in May 2020, there's been four or five other large-scale studies, now totaling more than 70,000 participants in these studies, all showing the same thing, that hydroxychloroquine by itself Cuts hospitalization rate by 50%, by itself cuts mortality by 75%.
You add to that vitamin D, steroids, zinc, budesonide, which is a steroid, vitamin C, other things, nasal sprays, you can get it well over 90%, 95%.
So that's what doctors who have actually been treating COVID have been using over this time.
It's worked very successfully.
It's an open secret, as it were.
You know, the officialdom narrative says it doesn't work because they carried out fake studies in hospital patients and then claimed it didn't work in outpatients.
They carried out randomized trials.
of people that were, you know, middle-aged and not at high enough risk, so there were no deaths, you know, and then said, well, look, it didn't prevent any deaths because there weren't any, so it doesn't work.
All of these nonsense things that came out to try to suppress this medication for ulterior motives, and in the meantime, I was getting, you know, emails from people across the country saying, I'm very sick.
I don't know what to do.
I don't want to go to the hospital.
People are dying in the hospital.
What should I do? And I said, well, I have a list of, you know, maybe 50 or 75, and it grew to over 100.
Doctors who are actively treating patients by telemedicine across the country.
Here's, you know, here's where you can find the list.
Here you can choose from one that seems relevant to you.
Some of them are treating patients in person.
You can go to them if they're close enough to you and get treated.
And then I started getting emails back saying I was at death's door and I got the medication.
And I survived.
I recovered in three or four days.
And I'm here to tell the story.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
And this is very gratifying for me because I'm a research scientist, you know?
And so I've done ivory tower academic research, published more than 400 papers.
But one's gratification from that is satisfaction of doing good science, but not personal satisfaction of helping people To save their lives in the time of a pandemic.
So that's a lot more gratifying.
Yeah, yeah. And I mean, what went wrong here?
This all seems very logical, what you're saying.
It seems as though a lot of doctors should have realized what you've stated, right?
I mean, how many, you know, you're saying they were fudging the test.
I mean, how many individuals have to be in cahoots with each other for something like this to happen?
Well, if you have a big threat, Coming from the top, then people fall into line because they would rather protect their income and job security than the truth.
And so what you had is the corruption at the top corrupting everything all the way down.
So you have medical licensing boards across the states targeting doctors who were using these medications.
Ivermectin later on became part of the paradigm who were using these medications in outpatients.
Basically, threatening doctors with loss of their licensure.
You have the medical credentialing boards for giving doctors their specialty credentials, board certifications, removing those board certifications from doctors who were using these medications with their patients, or even Espousing to use these medications in public.
So all of this was happening top-down.
These people were either propagandized in line or threatened in line, one way or the other, usually by money, if not by whatever risks were told to them by government actors, likely, or big pharma actors when it comes to money.
As to what they needed to say in order to get with the program, so to speak, to supposedly protect the country from all of this that was happening.
And they all believe that doctors are very credulous.
They believe anything as long as it's plausible.
They don't have the time to go to the literature and figure it out for themselves, so they just believe I mean,
there's a lot of information out there, though, for somebody that would want to seek it out.
It hasn't... There have been enough doctors that have said the dangers of something like remdesivir.
And then, nonetheless, it seems as though a lot of doctors were just following the narrative, even though there was quite a bit of evidence to suggest that these methods were destructive.
Yes. And, you know, when the government gives incentives to put people on remdesivir, hospitals will put patients on remdesivir, whether they need it or not, whether it's in their interest or not, whether it kills them or not.
And the hospitals were given incentives to have dead COVID patients.
So the government was paying them thousands of dollars if patients died of COVID. So the hospitals were labeling people, if they tested positive for COVID and died, they were labeling them as died from COVID. And so there was no incentive, you know, to do real medical care.
This is why hospitals were absolutely refusing to give people ivermectin that families wanted and why numerous people had to hire attorneys, go to court, We're good to go.
Well, I mean, you know, there's parallels historically.
Like, for example, you know, we've always heard about the, you know, the Nazi regime, how, you know, oh, I was just doing my job.
I mean, I guess I'm trying to understand what the difference between what happened, frankly, with, you know, people doing their jobs in World War II versus, you know, what has been called by, you know, attorneys like Thomas Renz as the hospital killing fields.
Well, it's hard to know to be, you know, have a personal sense of what it was like to be in Germany or Europe during World War II. So I can't really make a personal comparison to that other than what I've read about the period.
It certainly seems like in Germany in the mid-1930s, before World War II, there was official propaganda, what one calls the big lie.
And certainly in 2020, I was already feeling from all the lying about hydroxychloroquine that we were under a regime of the big lie.
It was very clear that that was going on.
We have been under a psyop of agencies of the federal government, at least since that time, if not, who knows what was happening before, but a major one for whatever nefarious reasons that the government was given the security control of the pandemic.
So, five days after the pandemic was declared a public health medical emergency, five days later, that emergency management was shifted From the Public Health Administration in the United States to the military, to the National Security Council, which treated it as an act of war and managed it as an act of war.
And when you manage something as an act of war, then treatments become countermeasures.
Countermeasures have untoward effects that are basically just numerical.
Those lives don't matter except as numbers.
And that is the way it has been managed with an utter disregard gaslighting for the harms that have occurred throughout the pandemic with no formal public health evaluation of the damage that's going on versus the benefits that were supposedly obtained by all the measures that were employed during the pandemic.
Wow, wow. Before this interview, we were talking about what I was calling Medicine 2.0 and you corrected me.
Tell us about what is Medicine 1.0?
What is Medicine 2.0?
What is Medicine 3.0?
And if there is a 4.0, what is it?
And how does that hopefully correct some of the issues that we realize exist in our current medical industrial complex?
Well, traditional medicine was what I experienced as a child when our pediatrician would come to the house for home visits or we would go to the office for vaccinations and well visits and so on.
The idea of medicine treating diseases was standard.
And over the course of time, medicine began to awaken to the idea of prevention.
Now, prevention, even till today, has never been a big seller.
Because prevention doesn't seem as imminently needed as treatment.
And so people, when they get sick, will go to a doctor, but people will not as well think that, oh, well, I need to get my checkup for this or that, or screening tests for this or that, and so on.
And so it's a lot harder to...
There's no procedures to do, or virtually few procedures to do, except for things like colonoscopy or breast mammography that involve any more financial remuneration to doctors to be able to do in prevention so prevention has always been a slow starter it's there and doctors now treat prevention by looking at numbers so you go to the doctor you get a whole pile of lab measurements of your serum lipids
and your blood pressure and and things like that and then doctors write prescriptions formulaically based on those numbers And that is what passes for Medical Care 2.0, which is some degree of prevention, but not a personally tailored idea of prevention so much.
And then, you know, COVID happened, and doctors started realizing that they were being suppressed from actually just going back to treating patients by formulaic narratives coming from CDC, FDA, The various boards of medicine and so on saying, here's what you can use and here's what you cannot use.
You cannot use hydroxychloroquine.
You cannot use ivermectin.
These are dangerous products that shall never be used, which is contrafactual, meaning false.
And so this was stifling medical care.
So pandemic, I put into the 3.0.
And so I and other doctors got fed up with this.
And this is how my involvement in the wellness company came about.
The wellness company was the brainchild, Foster Colson, who is the CEO, and the late Dr.
Zev Zelenko, who after realizing that hydroxychloroquine regimens, including zinc and azithromycin, other antibiotics, things like that, were working effectively to treat COVID. And in his personal experience of treating more than 4,000 patients with no deaths or two deaths or something like that,
Found how well it worked, said, look, if we can't get these things into the hands of your everyday primary care doctors to be able to use because there's so much official suppression of them for other interests, pharma interests, etc., Then we need to be starting a clinic to be able to do that.
And now that a lot of medicine has gone to telemedicine because in-person visits are curtailed because of lockdowns and people being afraid to go out and things like that, well, we can do telemedicine also, and we can do a lot of primary care on telemedicine.
And so let's start a company.
And this was the formation of the wellness company.
And I and three other doctors, as medical advisors of the wellness company, were attracted to the whole idea of regaining the appropriate ground of primary medicine and being able to treat patients as individual patients with every possible approved medicine and procedure that is appropriate for each patient.
And so this means if a patient comes in and ivermectin is the appropriate therapy, then the patient gets ivermectin.
It doesn't matter whether the CDC says that ivermectin is for horses, which is obviously untrue.
That we, the wellness company doctors, are treating patients the way they're supposed to be treated.
And this is face-to-face telemedicine, not just email-to-email, but face-to-face Zoom-type interactions, which is good for a lot of primary care.
Not everything, but a lot of primary care can be done this way.
And this is how the telemedicine and the wellness company got off the ground.
We got into treating patients last October.
We've ramped up.
We have, you know, a full medical chart system, a prescription system that are filled by overnight mail through pharmacies and lab testing and X-rays, you know, recommendations and referral to specialists if needed.
And so this has been the Beginning formation of a medical care system, what I'll call Medicine 4.0, which is, you don't have, it's in your home, you don't have to go driving an hour to get to the doctor's office and wait for another hour to be seen, you know, and then get your three minutes of time with a doctor.
This is whatever time you need.
Generally, it's a good 15 minutes, plus or minus, as needed.
It's low cost, relatively speaking.
There's no insurance intermediate, so they don't take off a large share of the cost.
It's running $60 to $75 a visit, which is not much more than a copay in many instances.
And there are various programs we have.
If people need lots of visits, we have programs for that.
We also sell It's a company, custom supplements that have been using to treat long COVID and other things.
So it's been a very effective startup as a way of rebooting medicine into the way that it really was When I grew up, plus with preventive medicine attached, you know, into an effective way of treating patients as individuals and not formulaic.
I mean, if you had to tell the viewer what are the reasons why we got to a point where people, like I'd mentioned, attorney Thomas Wren's talking about the hospital killing fields where something like that was possible.
What were the critical errors in terms of the building in this medical industrial complex that then resulted in something like the hospital killing fields Well, you know, the problem is that the thinkers in Congress who pass our laws do not have the wisdom of the founding fathers of this country.
They have not foreseen unintended consequences very well.
And so what they did is they thought, oh, well, hospitals, it costs them more to treat COVID patients, so we'll pay them more to compensate them.
And what that did is it immediately created the reverse incentive of we can make more money by having more COVID patients.
And so the government, in making these policies, did it exactly backwards.
They created policies that provided antagonistic incentives, making the problem worse rather than better.
And, of course, there's always been the pharma corruption of medicine that has been legion that It has been complained about publicly for at least 20 years.
We know that the editors-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet have written books and made speeches and written articles about pharma corruption of what gets printed, published in these journals and other journals for that matter.
And this has been a pace throughout the whole pandemic, but has been throughout modern medicine, where you have to realize that in order to create a new drug, say, it costs a billion dollars in today's money.
That means that for every successful drug, it takes research on maybe a hundred others that fail all along the research process.
And it costs a lot of money to do all that research to find one that does work.
And so a billion dollars it takes to generate a new successful drug.
But then, as if that weren't enough, pharma spends another two billion in marketing it.
So what do you get for two billion dollars in marketing a drug?
Well, you get a huge amount of advertising in lay media.
You get advertising in medical media and journals.
And you get a huge amount of corruption across the influencer space.
What this means is you buy off consultants in academic medical centers all over the world to pay them as experts touting your medications, giving lectures on your medications, doing research studies, carrying out other activities in medical education, all to the tune of your money paying them as pharma.
And this pharma financial corruption all across the world in this goes a long way.
For $2 billion, it goes a long way.
And aligns all of the public statements and views on your drug in your favor.
And don't forget that pharma also has to pay FDA to review its drugs.
FDA is 50% supported by pharma income.
And it's actually two-thirds by corporate income if you include tobacco regulation.
And so, these are again perverse incentives that remove objective evaluation of products from the academic We're good to go.
Then no one's going to stand up to this and say, this is all lies.
So when pharma does this, you know, for products that presumably work, then when somebody pipsqueak like me comes out and, you know, not paid by pharma and says, well, look, here's the scientific research, and it shows the opposite.
It shows hydroxychloroquine works.
And if we had a medication costing a few dollars for a total course of treatment, Compared to $3,000 for remdesivir or mass vaccination across the whole world, across all people, needing it or not, costing trillions of dollars.
Then guess who's going to win in that argument?
There's nobody supporting the science, pushing back on that, saying, untrue, untrue, nature says it's untrue, you know?
And that's been the problem, that the corruption of everywhere.
The medical journals become addicted to the advertising revenue, so they can't say anything different.
They don't accept papers that show contrary messaging to the narrative, the pharma government narrative.
You have lay journals, lay media, taking huge amounts of pharma advertising, becoming addicted to that, and not able, therefore, to push back on anything that's not in pharma interest.
So pharma, when it plants all this advertising money to the billions of dollars that I've said, addicts the popular media to that and controls the media messaging.
So pharma is not just buying Knowledge base for laypeople to say, oh, here's a drug that might work for my condition.
It's actually doing two other things that are more subtle.
It's telling doctors what the side effects are in the fine print below, you know, in the ads, which relieves pharma of its responsibility to inform patients of the adverse effects of the drugs and puts it on prescribing doctors to do that.
And it also buys the allegiance of the newspapers and magazines and other media That become addicted to this money, who can no longer put out messages against pharma interests.
And, you know, that's been the corruption of the whole medicine industrial complex, so to speak.
Government medicine industrial complex.
You know, this reminds me of, so I often mention, you know, I'm of Armenian descent and for about a hundred years, the government of Turkey, formerly known as the Ottoman Empire, has been spending money with lobbyists and propagandists and hiring essentially hack historians to create a false history as to why the Armenians are no longer in Turkey, which is the reason is because there was a genocide with, you know, the Greeks involved also, you know,
they basically took out all the Christian minorities, right?
But the government of Turkey for the last hundred years has spent a lot of money hiring so-called professors, historians to create a false history because they don't want it to be known of what happened there because there are repercussions for that sort of thing in terms of restitution, in terms of potential return of lands. You know, how is it that?
Our systems have been infiltrated by essentially these methods whereby you could create false histories, where you could create, you know, false medical studies, essentially to push a financially motivated agenda.
It seems like it's pretty customary across the board that if you have money, you could basically create a whole bunch of lies, which harkens back to, you know, that I believe Joseph Goebbels, you tell the lie Well, the problem is that we have a hard time distinguishing between capitalism and crony capitalism.
Natural capitalism is a competition, and it allows actors to each one use their resources to try to compete with other parallel-like resourced other actors.
And in that manner, each one keeps others in check.
What happened is crony capitalism destroys that balance.
It basically puts all of the resources into one entity or unit.
So, for example, when in the 1930s, companies formed interlocking directorates, which means the boards of directors of large corporations, shared those directors across multiple different corporations, that created what were tantamount to one giant company across the world running some industry.
By policies, by pricing, costs, and so on, and therefore was what I call mathematically an absorbing state.
Once you get into that, there's no way to get out of that other than by breaking it apart.
And so what's happened now is we've returned to crony capitalism, where the government is the interlocking directorate with the companies.
And because of this, the government, instead of breaking apart these corrupt relationships, has fostered them, calling them Public-private partnerships, which is basically techno-fascism.
The same as in communist China.
It's basically the government picking and chooses which companies it wants to support, pouring money into those companies, suppressing competing companies, And locking in what those companies can do against the interest of the people and for the interest of the company and at least nominally their shareholders, although that has been in dispute in the last six months as well, as we could talk about.
So what's happened is that, and people can't tell the difference between regular competitive capitalism and crony capitalism, The corruption of capitalism, that's what's destroying this country, is that capitalism is not allowed to flourish in the context of crony capitalism.
And because the corporations under crony capitalism have so much money that is poured into the PACs supporting virtually all of our elected representatives, Then those representatives are part of the problem, that they cannot come out and say that this is a complete corrupt cabal of financial control of the government by these corporations.
So these corporate government partnerships are nothing more than the corporations Forcing the government to take positions to support the corporations back again, because, you know, representatives, congressmen and senators, know that if they go against their corporate sponsorship, that they won't get money for their next re-election, and their opponents will get the money, and they'll be out of their government job.
And so with very few exceptions, All of these large PACs that have huge amounts of corporate money are controlling what our representatives say.
This is nowhere more apparent than the fact that during the first year of COVID, there were 21 doctors in Congress.
Not one of them stepped up to say anything about early treatment or anything else on tour that was going on in the management of the pandemic.
They were all silent.
They were all corrupted by corporate PAC money.
That is not how we should have a government that's run.
We are totally corrupted by crony capitalism.
I mean, I fail to see, like, the difference between what's happening here right now and something like Stalin's cabinet, for example, that is just, you know, kowtowing to whatever, like, corrupt, destructive agenda.
I mean, what is the difference there?
We make fun of the, you know, or we criticize the communist dictator-like behavior, you know, these, you know, individuals that have basically taken away people's rights.
How is that different than what's happening right now?
Well, we don't have to say it's the same as Germany or China or Russia.
You know, a Soviet Union.
It is a kind of fascism.
It is a totalitarian control.
That much is clear.
And how this is enforced is through the methods that I've said, by financial control of what people can say, whether they're government people or private people acting as experts in the science, in the public health policies.
All that has been corrupted ultimately through money and through threat against careers.
Wow. And traditionally, when this happens, the only pushback is the fourth estate, the fourth branch of government, which is the public media.
Now what happened is once the public media got corrupted, first by political affiliation, when the public media got completely affiliated with one party and it became party over country in the media, then that check and balance against And government corrupt behavior was lost.
And the only other avenue was the courts.
And the courts has also been polarized with a small fraction of the courts being on the right of the spectrum and the great majority being on the left.
So, the courts on the left have virtually uniformly refused to look at legal issues that have scientific underpinnings in terms of the pandemic and have basically narrowly said, well, if these behaviors that we're adjudicating on were legal, we don't care if there was no science or anti-science involved.
The people who did them were By their job descriptions, we're allowed to do things that involve bad science or anti-science.
That's not illegal, so we can't rule on that, even though science goes through the courts all the time in other kinds of court cases and so on.
And so as long as they didn't run away with the money, which is not what one's alleging, then they can do anything that's bad.
And if you don't like it, then have their bosses get rid of them and hire new people.
But the courts can't throw them out or find against them.
That's been the way most of it has gone.
Courts on the right, however, have said, look, there are more fundamental issues here.
And the pandemic has infringed upon what are basically constitutional rights that are not thrown away when you declare an emergency.
And the fact that the pandemic emergency has only a limited range of things the government can do and things that it can't do, which is the mandates, you know, for various things and closures and speech on various topics.
Those things are not part of what a government can do under a pandemic emergency.
You have to remember that when the Constitution was created, that the founders of the country lived during smallpox pandemics.
You know, smallpox was rampant in the United States in that era, and they didn't carve out exceptions to the Constitution for smallpox.
Yeah. You know, because they knew that the constitutional rights and processes didn't change during a pandemic.
You know, you managed it, you know, by medical and public health, but that didn't mean that the pandemic itself was somehow extra-constitutional.
And somehow we lost sight of that, and the courts should have pushed that back and have only begun to do so to a small degree so far, but that's been increasing.
I mean, we have, you know, one of our constitutional rights is life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
I mean, how is this not an infringement upon people's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness when the system itself is essentially poisoning them?
I mean, more or less, what you're telling me is that there was a choice made To put things forward like remdesivir, to put ventilators forward, which we've heard result in 50% more fatalities.
How is this indicative of protecting our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness when life itself is being compromised?
Well, it's corruption. It's pure corruption.
And whether the people who are enforcing this from the top think of it as corruption or think of it as cover-up for why this even happened in the first place, meaning the origin of the virus, all of that is part of their potential reasoning that we don't have...
You know, complete information about, although the FOIA documents have begun revealing lots of things been going on about how the scientists who were involved in this at the beginning, what they did.
We know this goes back well before 2019 and the first cases in September, plus or minus, of 2019 at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
That the whole industry of the gain-of-function research that was being done through Tony Fauci's Institute and the bio-military warfare agencies of the Department of Defense, all of this was going on in a colossally amateur way by all those scientists.
And The ability to have controlled what happened was kind of given...
I don't know exactly what phrase to use, but it was talked about, but not taken seriously.
And so this is, for example, during 2014 to 2017, under the Obama administration, was a pause on doing gain-of-function research.
Gain-of-function research is taking an organism like a virus that doesn't normally infect or kill people And changing its biochemistry or genetics in a way that makes it infectious to people or more infectious to people or more virulent to people.
And this, you can see, is obviously very dangerous research.
Needs to be carried out under the utmost security, biological security conditions.
And yet, Tony Fauci approved research to do this in conditions that were nowhere near secure enough.
What we call BSL-4 laboratory, which is the most secure biological containment facility for research, The research was done in a BSL-2 laboratory in China that was not secure.
Eventually, that lab was upgraded, but it started off in a BSL-2 lab.
It was farmed out to China through a middle company because the direct funding of the lab in China was not allowable.
So the money was laundered through EcoHealth Alliance, and that's Peter Daszak's company.
It was done by Ralph Baric, you know, in North Carolina.
Peter Hotez contributed to all his gain-of-function research.
All this stuff was done during the pause on gain-of-function research.
That was supposedly paused by the government, but still allowed by Tony Fauci and Francis Collins at NIH to squeeze around, to ooze around that pause in the research.
It should never have been done in the first place.
The rationale for doing dangerous research is our enemies are going to do it, and so we have to do it too.
And what they did is they misrepresented a plausibility of we'll be able to control what happens if our enemies make something that's damaging to us into something that seemed plausible but never produced anything that would be useful.
So, for example, This gain-of-function virulent virus research that was done was published in 2015 and 2016.
Okay, so they already had virulent viruses then in their laboratories that they knew could be wholly, colossally damaging were those to escape.
Their whole point of doing this work was to create Countermeasures, so to speak, vaccines or medications to deal with that should those viruses get out.
Well, between 2016 and 2019, did they?
The answer is no. Why not?
That's the question. Why did they say, well, so we did this research under the premise that we're going to use it to be able to create countermeasures if our enemies do this.
Yet we never created any of those countermeasures once we actually had the viruses in hand.
So, for example, the knowledge of those viruses, the codes of those viruses could have leaked out to the Chinese or to other enemies, you know, who could have created them and set them out there.
Did we have a vaccine at the ready?
No. The second point is, Suppose that the Chinese figure out, well, look, they did this to this virus.
We'll do the same thing, but we'll do it a little bit differently, and therefore any vaccine that they might have created for their virus won't work for ours.
So what was the point of doing our gain-of-function research if we still don't have any countermeasure to what our enemies might be doing against us?
The whole thing was colossal misrepresentation, plausible but irrational misrepresentation doing very dangerous research without appropriate oversight and addressing these questions In the regulatory way of saying, look, if you can't address these questions properly, we're not doing this research.
We can't do the research until you can address these questions satisfactorily so we know what we're really getting out of this.
And so there really is a potential benefit and really empirical measure of no risks of harm that this would get out.
You know, from... Sorry.
None of that happened. You know, from somebody watching this from the outside, right?
It seems as though the medical industrial complex or the pharmaceutical industrial complex is literally creating medications that are wholly unnecessary because they could patent it.
They can make a lot of money off of it.
Like you said, $2 billion.
They spend $2 billion on advertising.
You sell a whole bunch of these medications.
That seem wholly unnecessary when we have things like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, zinc, and it doesn't, you know, I don't fail to see that, hey, they don't want this stuff out there because it's cheap.
Vitamin D is in the generic, you could get it anywhere.
You can't charge $100 a pill, $50 a pill, $20 a pill.
You get a bunch of pills for like $10 and you're pretty much done and set at that point.
With things like zinc, you were mentioning hydroxychloroquine ivermectin, $0.40, $0.50 price point.
All seems very inexpensive.
All seems like you can't make a lot of money doing it.
So would you agree that this is all just financially motivated?
They want to patent stuff that you really don't need, that there are better alternatives and they want to hide the stuff that really works because that stuff's cheap and they can't make So that is true.
That is by far the motivation of pharma.
The stockholders of pharma are the ones who nominally would benefit.
Along with the pharma personnel.
But that is the motivation for pharma.
And in fact, the pharma model is, so it costs $3 billion to invent and market a drug.
And we know there's going to be litigation, so we put $5 billion or $10 billion You know, in escrow for the legal costs, we mass sell it as best we can until the legal cases come.
So we make $30 billion in total.
We have to subtract from that $10 billion for the costs.
So we make $20 billion, and then we take it off the market and move on to the next one.
Meanwhile, how many people are damaged by this over the seven years before FDA takes it off, like Vioxx and other things?
The model is get in, get what you can, get out.
And that is not the way public health or medicine should be done at all.
And I agree with you.
A lot of these medications are unnecessary.
They're being sold to people on the basis of...
Here's something you need that you didn't know you needed.
Now, I'm not saying all medications are like this.
I've worked with pharma scientists who are very idealistic that their medications help people, treat people.
Many of them do. And obviously, you can't get a medication out there that does nothing Although, actually, Aduhelm is a medication that's out there that does nothing.
That was approved by FDA. But in general, medications do help to some degree.
And they get taken off the market, not because they don't help, but because their risk profiles are too high, and there are too many people who've been adversely affected from them.
That was not recognized, you know, initially.
That's the major reason why the things are removed from the marketplace.
Wow, wow. So, you know, let's talk about human nature.
What has this last three years taught about human nature?
Basically, that...
For me, growing up as a child after World War II and thinking that was somehow specific to Germany, that was somehow specific to the 1930s, people were less sophisticated then, supposedly less sophisticated then.
Now we know better.
Now we have the experience of what can happen when people blindly believe government propaganda and so on.
And of course, all that went out the window in 2020 with the government propaganda and the big lies that were out then.
Some of those big lies are still out there today that the, for example, the FDA's big lie about hydroxychloroquine is still a warning page that I haven't checked in the last few days, but it's been out since July of 2020.
Saying, warning, hydroxychloroquine shall not be used in outpatients because of the risk of cardiac adverse events.
And then in the fine, that's in big black letters at the top.
And then in the fine print it says, we base this warning on one study of hospitalized patients.
You can see this is already a fraud because hospital COVID is a totally different acute respiratory distress pneumonia syndrome.
Where the lungs fill up with immune system debris, treated totally different, totally different illness to the outpatient flu-like illness that hydroxychloroquine treats.
And so for the FDA to say, we have one study, not even reviewed all the studies, but we have one study that supposedly shows Adverse events of using hydroxychloroquine in hospital patients, and therefore hydroxychloroquine shouldn't be used and poses a risk in outpatients, is utter corruption fraud.
And that's been on their public website since July of 2020.
So this has been fraud, propaganda marketed to the world by our governments, and obviously this is not in the interest of the health of the public.
Exactly, exactly. Do you have any idea as to what the single main issue of what's gotten us to this point, what is that?
The universities, yeah.
Okay, the universities have filled up people's heads with theories, and when you fill up people's heads with theories, all the common sense falls out.
I'm not the first to say this.
I think Dietrich Bonhoeffer said this in World War II, that the intellectuals all have ideas about how the world works, and those are all plausible theories, and none of them are true, and only people are actually paying attention to what's actually happening out there.
Are the ones who actually know what's going on.
And so that's created doctors who are afraid of their shadows, who refuse to look at the real world.
It's created academics who refuse to look at the real world, academics who've never treated COVID outpatients, who make pronouncements about what works and what doesn't work in COVID outpatients.
It creates government people who use their tools for Private benefit of them and their cronies, so to speak, and the corruption of government.
It's really shown us that we live in a banana republic.
Growing up as an American, I had an idealized view of America as striving for human rights all across race, ethnicity, gender, everything in the U.S. What we've seen is That no,
that's not what we're about. We're a banana republic with colossal corruption going on at, you know, in the government, actors, parts of the government running amok, not being controlled, as we've seen from the CIA for, you know, for its virtually entire history that, you know, the regulatory agencies being captured because people were either threatened or thought that they were doing something intellectually that had no common sense.
And so what we basically had is a molding system of the elite of this country that has created in them the inability to actually think what they're doing and understand the ramifications of what they're doing.
And that has all the tentacles of, you know, self-interest, financial interest, and so on, that has been able to take advantage of moronic intellect that is filled with lots of subtle erudite ideas that is completely irrelevant, essentially completely irrelevant to the common sense that it takes to run a country.
What they did is they switched from critical thinking to indoctrination.
Critical thinking is difficult.
You know, basically one, I don't think I got critical thinking until I was in my 30s.
You know, I had a lot of science education.
I had probably one of the best science educations one could possibly have, you know, going to Caltech for college and knowing, you know, three or four Nobel laureates as my professors and advisors and so on.
That was a phenomenal education, a scientific education.
And then medical school, you know, at a great, you know, UC San Diego where all the Harvard and Yale academics went to La Jolla to retire and so they taught the last five years and I was in the fifth class of that.
These are amazing scientific educations that one gets.
But it doesn't give you common sense.
Common sense is wisdom.
It doesn't occur until you've been around in the world for a while and put two and two together about why things happen and you have to have kind of a curiosity that try to make sense of everything and try to understand why things do or don't happen.
And I expect people to do that and not just get spoon-fed everything from media and believe things because the New York Times says it.
You don't run a country by everybody reading the New York Times.
Yeah, exactly. Thank you so much, Dr.
Risch, for being available to be on our Blood Money podcast.
We appreciate the incredible work that you're doing.
And we really hope the best for doctors like you that have actually been vocal about You know, the nonsense that has happened, you know, and hopefully Medicine 4.0 becomes a reality because currently, obviously, what we're what we're currently doing is obviously not working.
And I think COVID showed that on a massive level.
So thank you so much for coming in the Blood Money podcast for the viewers.
My pleasure. And you can put on the podcast, you know, how to reach me if people have questions and want to ask.
They can Google me at Rish and Yale, and they'll come up with me and find my Telegram and brand new Twitter channels and my wellness connection also, the twc.health.
I'm there also. Thank you, sir.
Thank you so much. And for the viewers out there, thank you for joining us for this Blood Money episode.
Please join us on AmericaHappens.com for all of our shows, including Joey Gilbert's Gloves Off, Mindy Robinson's Conspiracy Truth, the State National University with Gianna Michelli, our AHN News Live, which we're doing every Tuesdays and Thursdays at 2 p.m.
Pacific, 5 p.m. Eastern, where we have our host of citizen journalists bringing the news from across the country.
Thank you so much for joining us for this episode of Blood Money, and I will see you on the next episode.
♪♪♪
out the America Happens Network.
▲
Export Selection