All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 10, 2021 - Rudy Giuliani
57:53
Esteemed Doctor tells the TRUTH about the Science Surrounding COVID | December 10, 2021 | Ep 195
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, this is Rudy Giuliani, and I'm back with another edition of Rudy's Common Sense.
Today we have with us a very, very distinguished guest.
Very brave and courageous doctor, Dr. Harvey Reich.
He is presently at the Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine.
His academic background is University of California, San Diego.
His MD degree, a PhD from the University of Chicago.
His BS from the California Institute of Technology.
I would say he's well educated.
And he's also a very, very prolific writer.
350 original peer-reviewed research publications.
And he's held very many prestigious positions.
The associate editor of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, editor of the International Journal of Cancer.
He was on the board of editors of the American Journal of Epidemiology, right?
Epidemiology.
Epidemiology, right?
Epidemiology.
And he's a member of the Connecticut Academy of Sciences and Engineering.
The real purpose of this interview is, at a very early stage, he zeroed in on what we now call COVID-19 and its variants, right?
Alpha, Delta, and now Omicron.
I want to ask him how he did that and then basically his observations along the way where he's been involved both in research, he's reviewed and overseen a great deal of treatment, he knows most of the experts in the area.
And now that we are facing, well first of all we're still dealing with the Delta variant and we're facing this new variant.
I thought it would be very, very good to review how we got here and what lessons we learned from it.
No one better than Dr. Reich.
Doctor?
Thank you.
Pleasure to speak with you today.
You know, I got into this almost by chance, really.
About February or March of last year, the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering, of which I'm a member, struck an ad hoc committee to help to advise the governor on the reopening of the state of Connecticut after the lockdown.
Now, the governor already had a committee to do that.
But in our case, this was an eclectic committee of kind of out-of-the-box thinkers to figure out what else we could do.
We had a psychologist.
We had people who were engineers who know how to build jet planes.
They know about airflow and so on.
And I was an epidemiologist on this committee.
And it wasn't just by chance.
Most of my scientific research over the last 40 years has been on the etiology of different kinds of cancers.
However, my PhD from the University of Chicago that you mentioned was on mathematical modeling of infectious epidemics.
And I published on that before I started working on cancer.
So I have this general understanding of how these epidemics work, what herd immunity is, how we get to it and how we lose it and get back to it and so on.
And so I started working in this committee And it became increasingly apparent.
When was that when you started working?
About March, April of last year.
So when it first emerged, almost hysterical, seemed to me at some point very early on, hysteria, I don't know if justified or not, but hysteria surrounded it.
Well, it was, I think, fair to say it was kind of exploding, you know, in the numbers.
At least so we thought, and not unreasonably for that time.
And so that's when we had the lockdowns that started.
And so that's when we started thinking about how to deal with it.
And this committee started operating.
How would you describe the committee?
Is there a name or a group of doctors?
It had a long, tortuous name, but basically to advise the state of Connecticut on the reopening of the state after its lockdown.
And so, there were strange things happening, and that is that we already knew from a few doctors, one in France, that's Dr. Raoult in France, and Dr. Zelenko here, that people were starting to treat this infection successfully with repurposed, approved, but off-label medications, including hydroxychloroquine and antibiotics.
So, Dr. Roux had been using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, and then Dr. Zelenko figured out that one should add zinc to that recipe, and then the combination would work even better, and was treating his patients in Monroe area of New York City very successfully in March and April of last year.
And then we started getting these strange reports in the news media of studies that have been looking in hospital patients, claiming that the drugs didn't work in hospital patients, and therefore saying that they can't work in outpatients.
And At first, I thought this was just sloppy doctors and sloppy reporters.
Reporters always misrepresent almost everything they get from some... Why would it be sloppy, doctor?
People might not understand that.
Why would it be sloppy?
Because they were thinking that, oh, well, hospital disease is just another version of outpatient disease, and therefore it's just one disease.
And so study the reports on one part of it applies to all of it.
But at that point already, we knew that outpatient COVID is a flu-like illness.
It's a cough and a fever and muscle aches and headache and runny nose and tiredness and fever.
Did I say fever?
And so on, that it's like the flu.
And after five or six days, in some people, not a lot, but in some, it's an appreciable number, it progresses to a full-blown pneumonia.
And it's a respiratory distress syndrome-like pneumonia that fills up the lungs with immune debris.
And that pneumonia is very severe and potentially life-threatening.
It's a totally different disease than the flu-like outpatient disease.
And this is the problem.
And there's more stages when the pneumonia will spread to the rest of the organs of the body and damage them, too, if it's left uncontrolled.
But the point is that treatments for this severe pneumonia, when the virus is almost entirely gone and has to deal with the immune system, is a totally different disease than treatment of outpatients with COVID, which is a problem of the replication of the virus, and that's what has to be treated.
And so these fake studies were claiming that the studies of hospital patients applied to outpatients, and this was being widely reported and misrepresented that these hospital studies applied to outpatient disease, and therefore that outpatient treatment didn't work, when, of course, doctors were using it At the time that you came to that conclusion, how many studies existed?
Because I remember doing a podcast back then with several doctors, and they pointed to I can't remember the number, but the number was quite impressive, that hydroxychloroquine, with zinc in particular, but even hydroxychloroquine, or even chloroquine, it's earlier, was quite effective, including Dr. Roux, and studies in Italy, and studies in several other, and then one at Cornell.
I think it's time to take a short break.
I accomplished a lot in 2020 exposing the truth, establishing the relationship with you, working tirelessly for America.
And I came to know the work and value of the people at American Hartford Gold.
You see, you buy gold, not only for what you know, but you buy gold for what you don't know.
American Hartford Gold is the company you can trust when it comes to buying gold.
They sell physical gold and silver delivered right to your door or inside of your IRA.
In the precious metals industry, they are the highest rated firm in our country with an A-plus from the Better Business Bureau and thousands of satisfied clients.
Give them a call and tell them Rudy sent you.
And be sure to ask them what I bought.
And if you call them right now, they will give you up to $1,500 of free silver on your first order.
Folks, these are uncertain times.
The one thing you can count on to protect what you have worked so hard for is physical gold and silver.
So, don't wait.
Call them now.
Call 833-GOLD-777.
That's 833-GOLD-777.
Or text Rudy to 65532.
Again, that's 833-GOLD-777.
Or text Rudy to 65532.
Thank you for returning to the interview with Dr. Reich.
Rudy to 65532. Again, that's 833-GOLD-777 or text Rudy to 65532.
Thank you for returning to the interview with Dr. Reich.
So the Cornell study, I believe, was a hospital study. So I wrote a paper on hydroxychloroquine
and remdesivir at the time last May of last year.
It was kind of a seminal paper for hydroxychloroquine that got published in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
That paper has had 150,000 hits.
It's been downloaded more than 90,000 times, the most the journal has ever seen.
But the interesting thing is, at that time, there were only five studies looking at risk of hospitalization and outpatients.
So, there wasn't a lot of data, but the data were very convincing.
My colleagues didn't think that I had enough data.
I entertained, send me more data, you know, show me a study that doesn't show this.
Over the next few months, five more studies came out, all showing exactly the same thing, much larger studies, national studies in Iran, national studies in Saudi Arabia, studies that I cooperated with colleagues in Brazil, All these studies showing amazing benefits reducing risk of hospitalization and especially reducing risk of mortality.
That hydroxychloroquine just by itself reduces risk of mortality about three quarters when it's used in outpatients with starting in the first five days or so.
And what happens when it's combined with zinc?
So, the evidence that we have is that it's better when it's combined with zinc, when it's used with an antibiotic like azithromycin or doxycycline and so on.
There are doctors who've been doing this.
So, you know, in the last year, year and a half, I've been connected with a number of telemedicine groups, with clinical practices, probably people you know, like Dr. Fareed, Dr. Tyson, Dr. McCullough, other doctors across the country who have been treating pain, and Dr. Zelenko, of course, who have been treating large numbers of patients this whole year and a half.
They've reported to me that they've treated more than 150,000 COVID patients.
I don't know what fraction of them would be considered to be high risk, maybe 25%.
That's a guess.
But anyway, 150,000 patients with fewer than two dozen deaths, a handful of deaths in total out of 150,000 patients.
That is prima facie evidence that this works.
That's not anecdotal evidence.
That is The eyes of the doctor is treating those hundreds, tens of thousands of patients.
And to say that this is not evidence because it's not a randomized trial is just nonsense with those numbers.
Wasn't that impractical under the circumstances?
I mean, I'm thinking of the doctor on the line, the patient walks into your office, He either has a beginning form of this illness or it's advancing.
You know that if you let it go, it could advance into hospitalization, intubation, being put on a ventilator and dying.
Isn't the normal situation over the centuries that you look for the best thing that you can think of to at least alleviate the symptoms, right?
That's right.
And right away.
You know, you don't sit around and wait and twiddle your thumbs waiting for something to happen.
I have a vague recollection, doctor, that Dr. Fauci wrote an article about the benefits of hydroxychloroquine sometime earlier.
It wasn't him.
It was his institute, the National Institute of Infectious and NIAID, that wrote an article in 2005, I believe.
looking at coronavirus treated with chloroquine or maybe hydroxychloroquine.
So he knew about it.
This was known.
It was known in 2019 when the first cases were out.
There was movement.
The pharma companies knew that hydroxychloroquine worked well and there's evidence out there that they took steps to try to block it by A number of routes.
One is to try to restrict the availability of the medication.
The Minister of Health in France made it from over-the-counter to prescription only in, I believe it was October of 2019, on no evidence, on the flimsiest of contrived evidence, she did that.
Then there was a paper in the New England Journal In February of last year, claiming that only randomized controlled trials are evidence and that my entire field of epidemiology has no evidence in it.
And it was just a screed, a lying screed against epidemiology as a whole.
And these four authors of this paper are all paid for their salaries by drug companies.
And they just totally misrepresented the degree of evidence that randomized trials have.
And let me just say that one of the big problems that we've suffered for this whole two years is plausibility versus evidence.
That much of what's been given to the general public as public messaging, and even doctors as messaging, is plausibility arguments.
But plausibility is not science.
Plausibility requires proof.
And that proof has not been forthcoming.
And so when you hear that evidence-based medicine requires randomized trials, and if it's not randomized, then it's not evidence, that's a plausibility argument, but it's not a true one.
Because there's a massive literature showing that non-randomized trials in the modern era What would the alternative be if you can't do a randomized trial that would be as effective?
easy to subvert randomized trials in full public view to make them show nothing when in fact
there's some real effect that's really there.
What would the alternative be if you can't do a randomized trial
that would be as effective?
You do a large representative trial that's not randomized.
So for example, and you pay attention to the reasons why people select the particular treatments.
And this is what we did with colleagues in Brazil.
This was done in a large HMO in Brazil that serves six or eight million patients.
And they recorded, they put into place a outpatient treatment plan that let the doctors choose from six or seven medications on their clinical judgment what they wanted to use.
The patients had to agree with the doctors for the treatment, and hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, prednisone, and some other drugs were part of this treatment plan, and zinc.
And they could prescribe none, or all, or any combination, whatever they wanted.
And what we found is two things.
Number one, that hydroxychloroquine and prednisone, and together, provided reduced risk of hospitalization.
And the second thing is, because this wasn't randomized, That there was a difference between the treated patients and the people who didn't get those drugs, and the difference was that the treated patients were sicker.
That the bias in these studies is that the people who get the medications tend to be sicker and do worse.
Sure, that makes sense, right.
Right.
And that's a hill, a therapeutic hill that you have to climb over in order to show a benefit of your drug.
So, it puts you at a disadvantage for showing the benefit of your drug, not a bias towards making a benefit when there really isn't one.
And so, that is the kind of evidence that one needs.
And then we have the study of 7 or 8,000 patients in Saudi Arabia in a national study.
They have a modernized medical care system.
They set up clinics all over the country.
They took everybody in the whole country who got COVID, who came to these clinics.
It's the entire population of the people over a six-week or seven-week period there.
And the same is true in Iran.
They had 30,000 patients, some large number like that, of patients treated over some months in their population-based clinics.
So, it's very difficult to say that these are not representative good studies.
Well, it would seem to me that those would be the The only studies that would really emerge when you have a fast-moving surprise virus that hits you, you gotta treat it.
You can't wait for perfect studies to take place.
And the best evidence is real-life treatment.
Does it work?
Doesn't it work?
That's right.
And there's one other issue that's even more crucial for the reasoning, which is that hydroxychloroquine has a 65-year history of being used in hundreds of millions of people in tens of billions of doses safely.
That on the CDC's own website for malaria, it says that hydroxychloroquine can be taken by infants,
nursing children, pregnant women, frail elderly, people with diseases, everything.
Then how did that danger thing start?
I can remember reading a front page article in the Washington Post.
And when I looked at it, I said, this is going to kill people.
Because it gave the impression that hydroxychloroquine, if you took it, you'd get a heart attack immediately.
We'll pause for a few moments.
How much equity do you have in your home?
50,000?
100,000?
More?
Cybercrime experts are alerting homeowners that the more equity you have, the greater the chance foreign and domestic criminals will come after you.
Title theft is one of the fastest growing crimes.
Home Title Lock, America's leader in home title protection, is alerting homeowners they could already be a victim and not know it.
Here's how it goes down.
First, cyber thieves search hundreds of public databases for high-equity homes.
Next, they pull your home's title that's online.
They forge your signature stating you sold your home, and they take out loans using your equity.
You're not covered by insurance, your bank, or common identity theft programs.
Protect your most valuable asset.
Register your address now to see if you're already a victim and receive a complete title history of your home.
A $100 value free.
Go to hometitlelock.com.
That's hometitlelock.com.
It's quite an interesting interview, isn't it?
I think it's a public service, but let's go on with it.
Dr. Reich? So this is the effect that the doctors who have been paid as consultants to drug companies
do not give objective opinions. They give opinions tailored to the drug companies.
And the Cardiology Society put out a scientifically completely wrong opinion paper
saying what you just said. The problem is if you take an event that occurs one in a million people,
One in a million.
And you have some kind of drug that raises that risk by a factor of 10.
Well, a factor of 10 is a big change in risk, okay?
You write home saying, this is dangerous.
It's a relative risk of 10.
But in an absolute scale, now you're seeing it in one in 100,000 people.
Well, is one in 100,000 people big enough to freak out about?
The answer is no.
Let me ask you a comparison that is contemporary.
Are the risk factors, if any, with the vaccine, the various vaccines that we now have, less than, the same as, or more than hydroxychloroquine?
Oh, they're much higher.
Hydroxychloroquine is a completely safe medication.
There is a handful of reasons why it might be contraindicated.
So people have a very rare but existing certain genetic Isn't that true for any serious medicine?
I mean I listen to advertisements on television all the time and by the time I finish the advertisement they basically tell me the medicine is going to kill me.
I have no idea why people buy it, but they do.
But I actually have never heard that about the vaccines.
No one ever puts out, I know there are risk factors, they may very well be balanced by the benefit, but they always are when they're advertised on television.
It seems to me I never hear the risk factors on the vaccine given on television.
That's correct, nor in the informed consent documents that people sign, that they're not actually informed.
You know, this is a problem of politics and manipulation over proper medical care, but that's another topic.
Before we move on to the most recent variant, just so people understand it, if hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and the other things that you mentioned were used in, let's say, 70 or 80 percent of the cases that you get early, The profitability on the new medicines that the companies were working on furiously would have dropped by billions of dollars.
And we're talking about billions of dollars that can be made here, right?
That's right.
So, for example, I got the disease in December of last year, and it was pretty far along.
I already had pneumonia when it was diagnosed, probably because I was ignoring it.
And I had to be treated with everything.
And I was fortunate enough to be working for the president at the time, and I got the new, at that time, the new medicine.
The monoclonal antibodies?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
That's right.
And I have to tell you, that and the And they also gave me hydroxychloroquine as well.
But they gave me that, and they gave me steroids.
Right.
Prednisone or something equivalent.
Right.
Honestly, I was better in two days.
And then about three days later, I think it must have been the steroids, I was feeling younger.
And the president had promised me, I'm going to do a miracle for you.
The fact is, this is now, maybe at the beginning we didn't know what to do, but this is now a treatable disease, but we avoid the correct treatment.
So, now I'm immune.
I've had antibodies checked, I'm immune.
From everything I can read, including things you have written, and your colleagues, my immunity is as strong, probably stronger than any of the vaccines.
That's correct.
If the vaccine possesses a slight risk, even a slight risk, why should I take that risk?
I don't need to.
The only thing I can think of is there are 40 million people like me or 50.
That's an awful lot of vaccines to give up.
Or the current mayor of the city says you have to take it.
Yeah, but you think about if I were exempt, 40 million people would be exempt with me or more.
More.
Multiply the cost of the vaccine by 40 million people.
200 million people are immune in the United States.
So we're talking about amounts of money that are astronomical.
That's right.
For the owners of these companies, life-changing, world-changing amounts of money.
That's right.
That's the reason.
Now, the newest... When this all started, I know you expected variants, correct?
Correct.
Explain to us why that happened so people understand how this is going to progress.
So, in every person that's infected, they make mutations.
Probably thousands in every person.
And that's because that's how this virus got to exist in the first place, by having an enzyme that makes an error in its genetic replication may be in about one time in 10,000 of the little code of the genetic code that it has to reproduce.
It makes an error about one in 10,000.
So, each time it makes a few errors and tens of millions or billions of replications, it's going to make thousands of mutants, if not even more.
That isn't the issue.
Most of those mutants don't survive well because they're random.
But ones that do have a chance to get out and infect somebody else.
But if you're a mutant and there's five of you and there's 10 trillion of the one that came in that infected the person in the first place, the probability that you're going to get out and infect somebody else is very small.
So it takes, you know, a billion people to do this in order to have such a rare event that it gets out into another person.
What happens is, with vaccination, if the vaccine is calibrated to suppress the replication of the version of the virus that infects the person to start with, then that one doesn't replicate as well.
But a mutant that is insensitive to that suppression, that evades the vaccine, then has free reign to replicate in that person.
And so it'll make copies, And then it has a much better chance of getting out into somebody else.
It's almost like survival of the fittest.
That's exactly what it is.
It's evolution that you can see evolution working in minutes or hours or days in our own life rather than eons in the way that we got here in the first place.
So this is the way it works and this is Virology 101.
And there's cataloged thousands or tens of thousands of variants, most of which are not much different than their parental strain that they came from.
But once in a while, you get something that's appreciably different.
That's how we got to how the virologists label these with Greek letters.
that you know that we the original ones trained and alpha beta gamma delta gamma was the big one delta that that came then we skipped a few and and now we're up to omicron We'll be right back.
Not long ago, Mike Lindell, the inventor of MyPillow, and his team fit me for my very own MyPillow.
They also introduced me to their wide assortment of other incredible products, like their mattress topper, their sheets, towels, slippers, and more.
Sleep is incredibly important to me, and I can assume for all of you.
It's time you give MyPillow a try and see for yourself.
Listeners have helped build MyPillow into the incredible company it is today.
Mike Lindell wants to give back to all of you.
You can get great discounts on MyPillow products by going to MyPillow.com right now and seeing each of the specially priced items, including those in the Radio Listener Special Square.
You're going to see rotational offers up to 66% off on products like their pillows, mattress topper, geezer sheets, but also new products like their slippers, weighted blankets, robes, and waffle blankets.
All MyPillow products come with a 60-day money-back guarantee.
Enter promo code Rudy for these great specials.
That's mypillow.com.
Thank you for returning.
From the experience with Delta and so far with Omicron, it seems to me that mutation can either be more serious or less serious.
It doesn't always have to go in a direction of becoming more serious.
Well, there is what's known as Muller's Ratchet, which is a biological theory that when viruses mutate and spread, that when they're successful in spreading, That they become more successful, increasingly successful, by being able to spread better.
And if you're a virus and you want to spread, you don't want to kill your host because that stops your spreading.
So what viruses tend to do is tend to become less aggressive and more infectious.
And that's how we got to Delta for sure.
That Delta, it didn't become less aggressive.
It stayed about the same, but it certainly became more infectious.
It's about three times as infectious as the previous variants of COVID.
And is it more deadly than the original COVID?
Not really.
It requires aggressive treatment, but it is still just as treatable with all the same things that doctors have been using.
Roughly the same as COVID-19?
Yes.
And now, how about what we know so far of the new one?
So, Omicron is not well established yet because people have only been describing it for a few weeks.
But there's a few things that we can recognize.
The first is, there are sporadic cases all over the world.
What that means is, think about it.
If you have an outbreak of food poisoning, you see a whole bunch of people all in one place.
If you have an outbreak of an infectious disease, you see one person, and then a few, and then even more, all in one place, like what happened in Provincetown during the summer in vaccinated people who got COVID there and so on.
It was an infection that starts and propagates out from one person to a few to many.
That's what you see in something that propagates well.
Now what we're seeing is instead we're seeing sporadic cases all over the place.
Sure, some of them have made, you know, progeny cases as well and have started little infections, epidemics, but by and large all of these cases are suddenly appearing all over the world.
What that means is that most of these cases are asymptomatic, that they're unrecognized, that there's a lot more of them.
That if we looked for them, we'd find a lot more people.
And that many of these people have been detected because of screening, not because they were symptomatic.
And what that means is that, therefore, this virus is not as aggressive as Delta and the previous ones.
And that's what we think is how we understand how the virology works.
That it's the virus's interest not to be aggressive, but to make you sneeze and cough and to spread it.
You know, and that's how it's been acting.
And this disease, so far, is amenable to the same treatments as the original COVID-19?
In other words, the hydroxy or ivermectin, and then if it gets serious, the more powerful drugs?
Well, except for monoclonal antibodies, which have to be made from people who have fought off and gotten immunity from this particular variant.
But everything else will work fine because hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, antibiotics don't treat the virus.
They treat the host, the person, to repel the virus, to keep the virus from replicating And so it doesn't really matter which version, which strain of COVID that they're infected with.
So it seems to me one of the things that could be done that would reduce complications and death that really wasn't done, but is done very often with cancer, is to really warn people to look for the symptoms and go to the doctor right away.
That's right.
Instead of kind of debating it.
I remember Dr. Zelenko telling me, When I was talking to him, when it was going on, that if in doubt, he would treat.
Because hydroxy and Ivan are not harmful.
So what harm is he going to do if he treats?
I remember doing that when we had the anthrax scare in New York.
We had lots of people who had symptoms of being affected by anthrax, and a lot of people who imagined they had symptoms.
And the doctors here that advise me said we would give them a dose of Cipro if it were more than 50%.
And a lot of them didn't like it.
They didn't want to do it because they didn't want to break down the effectiveness of antibiotics, but they felt given the fact we were in an unknown world... In that case, it took like two weeks to get the study back because they were so backed up.
The person would have been dead by the time we got it back.
So they did anticipatory training.
That's right.
Even a couple of days for COVID is too long to get a test result back.
So I'm thinking if they had done the same thing that I did then with the doctors, we'd save an incalculable number of lives.
Well, we would have.
And if it weren't for the FDA and its fraudulent website, the FDA put up a website on July 1 of last year, it's still there, with a big warning sign saying, warning, do not use hydroxychloroquine.
It's unsafe because of, as you said, cardiac problems.
Unsafe for outpatient use.
And then the fine print underneath, it says, we base this warning on adverse events that we've seen in hospitalized patients.
And this is a fraud because as I said, hospital disease is a totally different disease than outpatient COVID.
And they had no evidence because they themselves had blocked outpatient use from EUAs from March that they did.
They had blocked outpatient use.
So there were no adverse events data in outpatients.
So otherwise they would have cited their outpatient data, which they didn't cite.
So this was a fraudulent warning.
Warning is still there.
It's been there for 20 months or whatever, and it's led the rest of the world and us To say that hydroxychloroquine is unsafe when it is perfectly safe.
That is the biggest problem.
With the knowledge that we have and that you can impart to us, so now we're facing this third situation.
And some countries have gone into a lockdown.
In New York, the governor wants to suspend elective surgery.
These are like drastic measures.
Mask requirements are back.
Mandated vaccines for everyone.
New York City now has a mandated vaccine.
I don't know where the mayor thinks he gets the power to do that other than from Nazi Germany, but I mean, there is no power.
The mayor can't pass laws.
He can't decide on health, but everybody has to.
I have to get a vaccine in New York and I don't need one.
I'm sure it'll be challenged and defeated in court, but that aside, what would be the right protocol to follow?
I'm sure we're going to face other variations, but what would be the right protocol to follow so we don't destroy our economy, create maybe more illnesses that emerge because of the lockdown than the original illness itself?
The lockdowns, again, is a plausibility argument, but they're actually counterproductive.
The only way we get out of this is with natural immunity, is with people who can safely become infected and recover, and that's what we have to do.
That there is no endemic disease that ever gets out by leaky vaccines.
That you either end up vaccinating everybody every three to four months for the rest of their lives, or you have to let them develop natural immunity by being infected and treating it or not treating it if they don't need it.
And so what you basically have to do is you have to protect with early treatment or vaccines or monoclonal antibodies or whatever it is in high-risk people who would not do well if they get infected.
Everybody else, you have to let them get infected and treat them if they need it.
Most of them won't, but you have to have the treatment available so they can get it if they need it.
And even if natural immunity isn't 100%, it's like 99.7% effective for the new variant and all other variants to come, it will be largely effective.
But even if it's not perfectly effective, it is what's going to generate the most herd immunity.
Vaccine immunity fades in four to eight months, and it doesn't generalize.
Think about it.
Would you give a year and a half old flu vaccine to somebody?
You'd laugh.
You'd say, well, why are you doing that?
It's not going to work.
So why are we giving a year and a half old COVID vaccines where the virus is two mutations beyond where the original vaccine was made?
That it's not rational to be thinking this way.
The vaccines were made to generate an immune response against one particular part of the virus.
And that was a mistake in the biology in the first place, that the vaccines should have been what we call polyvalent, that they should generate immunity just like natural immunity to multiple parts of the outside of the virus.
Is that the way the usual flu vaccine is done?
The flu vaccine isn't quite like that.
They mix different strains.
They sort of make a guess, right?
They make a guess on what... Yes, yes.
But in particular, they could have generated a vaccine that makes antibodies to not just the spike protein, but to the outer coating of the virus, to other proteins on the surface of the virus that don't mutate as quickly as the spike protein.
And they put all their eggs in one basket, and it was an inadequate basket, that's a leaky basket, that the eggs are falling out, you know, and they're just not getting through the idea that vaccines were created to have planned obsolescence.
And that's the problem.
There was an article, I don't know if you saw it, it might have been you, I'm not sure, but I saw this article a couple of days ago and it said that Omicron, of course everybody's guessing about it, but might be beneficial because it is very contagious, seems to be quite treatable and mild, but then you gain the immunity.
So, you know, we don't know.
It's a little bit risky to think that we could do that, but in fact that may end up being the way that the thing works, that we get out of pandemics when the virus mutates to be so mild that everybody gets it and then there's nobody left who isn't immune so that there's no place for the virus to go.
Whatever happened to the theory, doctor?
I remember this when I was a child because I had allergies.
The doctor at the beginning of the allergy season would inject me with the allergy.
And I'd get a mild form of it for a couple of days.
And then I'd most often have immunity from it for the season.
The idea of giving you a mild form of the disease so you develop the immunity so then you're protected.
Whatever happened to that theory of Would it not work with this COVID virus?
Well, that would be like giving Omicron parties.
You know, I mean... But isn't that the way vaccines were given at certain times?
I think smallpox was probably the best example of using cowpox, you know, to, as they say, just scratch the surface or inject it, as the more modern era had, that The vaccine has to make a biologically relevant exposure that creates an immune reaction that works.
And that's just the way natural immunity is.
In natural immunity, we know there's now a catalog more than 100 or 140 studies showing how good natural immunity is.
You know, this is known back to the ancients.
The Greeks knew that people only got infected with the disease once, you know, and so on, that even when the disease was around, That natural immunity is very strong.
Even if it's not perfect, it's still very strong.
So that is how we get out of this and the way we foster having the most natural immunity.
And the other thing I want to say is that the United States is in very good shape with natural immunity.
We have approximately two-thirds of the population that has had COVID.
Most of them have been asymptomatic, but at least two-thirds of the population have had it now.
And that means that things that come into our population are not going to spread so easily.
Compared to during the summer, when maybe only 40% had had COVID at that time.
So we're in a much better shape, especially compared to many places around the world that have much less natural immunity, that the whole idea of making vaccine immunity in the population.
And before we finish, can we just focus on children?
Because that's become very controversial.
declines, then you've got to redo it, and the hazards associated with that. Natural immunity
just works better. And that's how we get out. And before we finish, can we just focus on children,
because that's become very controversial. Is there an age below which there really isn't
much point to the vaccine? Fifty.
Meaning if you get the disease, it's not going to be fatal or that serious.
So we know who the people are at high risk of having serious outcomes.
People with obesity, diabetes, Cardiovascular or chronic kidney issues, people who are immunocompromised because they've had cancer or an organ transplant, and so on.
These are what we call high-risk people.
They are the ones who should consider whether to take the vaccines or not.
This includes children.
Children can be high risk, although it's not common.
But in high-risk children, there's an equation to evaluate whether they would get benefit or harm from taking the vaccines.
In everybody else, there is no high risk, and therefore there is no reason to entertain taking the vaccine.
It should still be a personal choice.
The vaccines do not suppress spread and transmission enough.
They do it for a while.
They are helpful, but not enough, and not in the long term.
So the interest of forcing people to be vaccinated is not met.
The criteria of the state having the power to force people to become vaccinated in COVID is not met like it was in the Jacobson case in Massachusetts in smallpox in 1905.
And we're not even close to that.
We're 120th the problem here with COVID that Cambridge, Massachusetts was in 1905 with smallpox.
So, there's no reason that we have to be so draconian now, and in particular, young children do not generally spread the disease.
It is a very, very low risk to them.
They basically get fever and tiredness, and maybe a headache a little bit.
They rest for a few days, and they're over it, and they don't spread it to their parents.
They get it from their parents, They don't spread it to teachers, by and large.
There is no reason that children should get it.
And the CDC themselves said that over a year period that they had recorded 66 children between the ages of 5 and 11 who had died with COVID out of 20 million or whatever children.
But of those 66, half of them were with COVID, not from COVID.
And of the 33, all of them were children who had these high-risk conditions.
In healthy children, zero, or essentially zero, have died from COVID.
So there is no reason to give vaccines to five to 11-year-olds, or younger children, to prevent them from dying, or even from serious outcomes that can't be treated, because they can.
In your interview with the Epoch Times, which I think is excellent and I recommend to everyone, it covers a good deal of what you are talking about here.
And you point to a study where 94% of COVID deaths had other causes, serious causes listed. Only 6% of nominals
as didn't. And there's no way of knowing if there wasn't something there just not listed,
but at least 94% had a serious comorbidity.
Wouldn't we be wise in the future if we laser focused our attention on the people of a certain
age or in the case of young people, people with certain comorbidities that make it much more
lethal. That narrows the population greatly. It gives you a chance of covering 100% of them.
And you're giving the care to the right people.
By diffusing it, you have to have missed a lot of the people that need this attention.
It seems like very, very poor medicine to me.
Correct.
That is exactly the point that you offer the vaccination to the people who need it, who have a risk that they want to manage, and that vaccination can help to manage by and large for them.
And that is rational, appropriate, ethical medicine to do it that way.
That's right.
But by billions of dollars, it wouldn't be as profitable.
Well, it's greed, actually, because you can still make a billion dollars, you know, around the world by doing this.
You can make more than a billion dollars easily by doing this, by a proper focused, you know, program.
Well, you know, Doctor, after many, many years, I spent my life prosecuting people and you spent your life saving their lives.
And my experience with prosecuting people is when they make the first billion or steal for the first billion, they want to steal for the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth.
It's almost a question of not just greed, but ego and competition and power.
I want to correct one thing before we go, because this...
You know, this could enter into the minds of people and they get very confused.
President Biden, the other day, said that with regard to the new Omicron variant, no one vaccinated had gotten it.
Just a straight out statement.
No one vaccinated had gotten it.
From what I was able to look at, back then, this was three days ago, it seemed to be far more people vaccinated had gotten it than people that weren't.
That is my impression, although they are saying that some unvaccinated people had gotten it also, and none of them had died either.
I mean, the one case that I focused on the most was one who traveled through New York.
He came to New York from maybe South Africa or wherever.
He was heading out to Minneapolis.
He was in New York for about two or three days at a conference.
He had it.
He went home.
He had been fully vaccinated.
And he was over it in two days back in Minneapolis.
He gave it to six people here in New York, I think five of whom were vaccinated and one of whom wasn't.
So, just like with COVID-19, which I call the CCP virus, by the way, COVID-19 and Delta, it seems to me It doesn't make much difference whether you're vaccinated.
In other words, if you're vaccinated, there are many, many cases where people have been reinfected.
That's right.
Well, the South African government has put out some data yesterday on this.
And they've made a modeling argument that the Omicron variant is more reinfectious
in people who've had COVID than in people who've been vaccinated.
However, the data that they actually show say the opposite, that the risk of reinfection from Delta,
from their big wave six months ago, had half the people at risk to be reinfected as now.
And since they have about the same peak number of cases per day, that the rate is half now for Omicron.
Now, Omicron could continue to rise to the point where it exceeds a reinfection risk, but as far as I know, virtually no reinfections have occurred that make worrying about them an issue.
The clinicians that I've spoken with, for example, Dr. Tyson in Southern California has treated 6,500 patients.
He said he's seen two reinfections that were a year apart.
And this is what we're talking about.
These are patients who were vaccinated or have natural immunity?
Who have natural immunity.
Natural immunity is very strong.
Is it foolproof?
Are the reasons why somebody could be immunocompromised not have made a good enough natural immunity that they could be reinfected?
Sure.
And, you know, in medicine, anything is theoretically possible, and there might be some cases.
That doesn't mean it's a normative way that things generally work.
You go on the way things normally work, for your first line of approach. And then you have to fix
the very small amounts that don't work that way. So we know that natural immunity works very
well for almost everybody, and that's how we should be proceeding. Well, doctor, I want to ask
you as a final statement, is there anything you want us to know about this that I haven't asked you
that would be helpful to people as they face whatever lies ahead in terms of variance? And
sometimes it appears a government and an industry that tries to make it seem like the world is
coming to an end.
Well, that is what I was going to say, that much of our behavior has been essentially forced on us by fear-mongering, that we are in a very knowledgeable state now.
We have a lot of tools for dealing with these infections.
And Omicron, nobody's died from Omicron, whether they're vaccinated or unvaccinated.
It appears to be a mild illness.
And that is the biggest issue that we face, that if this is going to be a mild illness, that we're going to get out of this eventually.
And whether it becomes endemic, which it might at a very low level, like flu, like colds, like other virus infections that we just have to live with and manage as best we can, mostly successfully.
That's how we're going to manage this.
And that's how, you know, we're going to end up.
And I'm optimistic that by spring, you know, early summer, we're going to be largely out of this and we'll have managed it as best we can, you know, if we're allowed to do that.
And Omicron may be helpful in that respect.
And so I think that people need to get on with their lives and just take it for granted that they're going to do well one way or another with this.
If they've had COVID, they're in great shape.
If they haven't, if they're vaccinated, they're in good shape.
At least for a while.
And that's how we're going to get out of this.
And not to be overly concerned with all the draconian things that the governments are foisting on us to instill fear, that those are control measures that allows them to stay in control without necessarily having good, rational, scientific reasons for doing things that may have plausibility but are counterproductive.
Like we said, for lockdowns, only postpone.
They don't solve.
And vaccination, as it As we've seen also has been shown now to be reducing some degree of immunity to other infections, and that may be a problem in the longer term, although it's not a big problem right now.
So we don't know, but in general, natural immunity is the way we're going to get out, and we should be optimistic that that's how we're going to do it.
Well, Doctor, you have my admiration and my undying gratitude for not only being in the fight right now, but from the very, very beginning.
And I know that you've gone through a lot of difficult situations as a result of this, and a lot of people that don't understand it and you've probably lost friends
and kept your good ones but lost the ones you probably should have lost. Well, you know who
your real friends are.
You sure do. But I have great admiration for you and I know a number of your colleagues also. And
surprises me that too many doctors went along with it. And I do. We never got to it. But I
really enjoyed reading about your distinction between doctors and corporate doctors, because
I see a similar thing in the legal profession, but that's for another time.
But thank you very much.
I highly recommend the articles you've written to people who want to be truly informed, and this podcast and the others that you've done are a great way to be educated.
Thank you very much, doctor.
Congratulations.
Have a wonderful holiday.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Well, I know that the doctor has done a really good job of summing it up.
I'm not going to repeat that.
I'm just going to say that, as I said to him, it's real public service, this particular podcast.
And I really do hope it is seen not just by the believers, but by the doubters and the people who need more information.
The tragedy of this is that every single thing he said is borne out by Thousands and thousands and thousands of caregivers and providers who were on the front lines and had to treat this despite the fact that they were getting, now appears to me, malicious false information from our government agencies, from those ABCs, and from people like Dr. Fauci, who now has
misbehave so often, it's hard to understand what his motivation really was.
And I would certainly, in the case of all these people, the Dr. Fauci's, the Biden people, the pharmaceutical companies, I would leave you with one thought.
Follow the money.
In the case of them, it's the money.
In the case of the people like Dr. Reich and his colleagues, it's follow the science.
They did.
They saved a lot of people.
But because the others, the Bionisters, the Democrats, and the billionaire big pharma people were following the money and the political gain, we lost many, many more lives.
I don't even hazard a guess how many people died because of their maliciousness.
Can't happen again.
That's why you have to become knowledgeable, and Dr. Reich is about as good a start as you're going to get, or a conclusion.
Thank you, and we'll be back with another edition of Rudy's Common Sense in a few days.
▲
Export Selection