You've been referring to this new shot as the updated COVID-19 vaccine.
Can you explain a little bit more the decision to no longer be calling it just a booster?
Well, we have to remember, we haven't seen a vaccine, a new vaccine since December 2020.
Body language.
Body language.
Independent determination that we now have new updated vaccine, as you just said, to fight COVID.
It is the first time that we have seen this type of updated vaccine, like I said, since December of 2020.
And the message to folks that we are providing is if you're 12 or older and it's been at least two months, I need to ask the doctor about this.
They made it.
The doctors did.
It's not her.
Everyone's pointing the finger around the house.
The CDC, they're still referring to this as a booster.
So I guess why the discrepancy are you concerned that may cause Well, I'm not going to get into like regular...
Like language, like science.
Changing words.
Damn it.
Okay, people...
Thank you.
You've been referring to this new shot as the updated COVID-19 vaccine.
Can you explain a little bit more the decision to no longer be calling it just a booster?
Well, we have to remember, we haven't seen a vaccine, a new vaccine since December 2020.
Our health and medical experts made an independent determination that we now have new updated vaccine, as you just said, to fight COVID.
It is the first time that we have seen this type of updated vaccine, like I said, since December of 2020.
And the message to folks that we are providing is if you're 12 or older and it's been at least two months, Updated vaccines.
Upgrade.
from idiocracy.
But you do still need to get the first original dose before you can get this shot.
The FDA, the CDC, they're still referring to this as a booster, so I guess.
Why the discrepancy are you concerned that may cause some confusion?
Well, I'm not going to get into regulatory language on what to call this.
I'll leave that to a booster or a vaccine.
I'm just laying out what the doctors and the expert have recommended.
This is, again, a new vaccine.
We haven't seen a new vaccine since December 2020.
What this vaccine does, it targets the Omicron variant, which is the dominant variant, not just here, but globally.
And this is...
This is good news.
This is a step forward.
And we're going to hear more from the president about this.
But we think this is, again, a good step forward.
We are in a place where COVID is now manageable.
We know what works.
Verbal diarrhea.
What keeps us from not getting sick is by getting vaccinated.
Omicron.
Bear in mind.
Right now, if you think about it, there's more than 200 million Americans who are currently fully vaccinated.
That's 77% of the population who are 12 and older.
And so that's an important way forward that the president has worked very hard since stepping into the administration to make sure that we had a comprehensive vaccine, you know, getting shots into arms.
Getting shots into arms.
Getting shots into arms is another one of the catchphrases that Trudeau was using.
Once upon a time during elections, getting shots in the arms, roll up those sleeves, getting shots into arms.
We're cattle.
I'm not going to break down the medicine, the science behind that two minutes and 11 seconds of verbal diarrhea coming out of the press secretary.
But I am going to ask some questions to a very renowned Yale epidemiologist.
Dr. Harvey Risch.
Now, if you haven't seen the first interview I did with Harvey Risch, we're going to go over very, very, very quickly just who he is, credentials, context.
Then we're going to wind down this stream on YouTube because this is not a discussion that can be had freely and openly, even if it happens to be with a professor emeritus.
Emeritus, Emeritus.
He'll, what's the word, pronounce it properly.
A professor emeritus at Yale University.
Even he cannot speak freely on the YouTubes because the uncertified medical practitioners at the YouTube censorship board determine what is medical misinformation and what is not.
And even a doctor like Dr. Harvey Risch is subordinate to the YouTube unlicensed, untrained practitioners.
It's going to be amazing.
People, without further ado, I'm going to bring in Dr. Harvey Risch.
And we're going to talk about this because there's a lot to talk about.
Developments.
And if Harvey doesn't know what he's talking about, nobody does.
Let's bring him in.
Doctor, how goes the battle, sir?
Hi, pleasure to be with you.
It's good to see you again.
It's been a while.
It's been almost a year.
Well, I have to see you, man.
Someone just said, poor pronunciation, unsubbed.
Dr. Risch, what was the most recent...
Accolade that you've been bestowed by the university?
Well, I'm now Professor Emeritus, which is just a fancy Latin way of saying I've retired.
It's actually more than that.
It is an honorific, and in fact, I'm not completely retired.
I still have grants running, and I'm a senior research scientist that pays a little bit, but most of my work actually continues unabated.
Nobody can tell that I'm retired, and the only difference is I just don't get paid.
Well, let me tell you something.
I didn't ask you how old you were last time, but you don't look nearly old enough to potentially be retired.
Can I ask you how old you are?
Well, my wife doesn't want me to tell.
Whatever you do, keep it up.
So, Dr. Rish, first of all, it is Rish.
I just want to make sure that, okay.
For those who don't know, we don't need to go back and do the entire history again, but 30,000-foot overview, who you are, expertise, credentials, your controversy.
And then we're going to get into the news of the era.
We are now two and a half years into this.
I don't remember exactly how long ago we did the interview, but things have changed.
Just give everyone your credentials so they can appreciate or disregard accordingly.
Okay.
So I'm a professor or now emeritus professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health.
I've been an epidemiologist for 40 years.
After college, I went to medical school at UC San Diego.
And then I went and got a PhD in mathematical modeling of infectious epidemics from the University of Chicago.
And then I did a postdoc for three years in epidemiology at the University of Washington.
I won't enumerate all of the amazing Nobel and other professors that I had throughout my undergraduate med school, graduate postdoc training, but some of the best people in the world in all of the sciences that I studied with.
No better science education than anybody could get more or less anywhere.
And I hope I'm worthy of all that education.
But in any event, so I started working as an epidemiologist.
I moved to, and for the postdoc, I moved to the University of Toronto, where I learned how to do outpatient population-based studies of cancer.
I was interested in the causation of cancer, and I studied drugs, diet, infections, ulcerative genetics.
All sorts of things related to potential causes of different kinds of cancers.
In 1991, I moved to Yale, where I've been ever since.
I became a professor of epidemiology in 2001.
I've done numerous of these large-scale studies.
These are studies that are more or less federally funded from NIH.
They typically are three to five million dollars worth of study.
I've done a number of these, take five to seven years.
The data lasts forever.
You know, the analyses go on forever, and that's what keeps epidemiologists in business, studying all of the things that we're interested in.
But when COVID came along, I'm an elected member of the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering, and we struck a committee to help.
Advise the governor with some more out-of-the-box kinds of thinking about how we might exit the lockdowns from that period in April of 2020.
I was on that committee and I helped discuss a number of the different topics that were part of the discussion at that time with colleagues in that committee.
It was very interesting.
Actually, that's what you're going to have to flesh out now because...
The bulk of your decades of experience, epidemiology is the spread of disease.
Well, not exactly.
This is a very interesting question that I've asked.
So I've been teaching PhD students in epidemiology for, well, almost 40 years.
And so one of the first things that I ask them is, what's scientific about epidemiology?
Now, if you're talking about infectious disease epidemiology, there's all the different...
Organisms in the lab work and all that stuff.
That's all science.
But for me, it's the chronic disease epidemiology.
So if I study liver cancer or pancreatic cancer or lung cancer or something, I'm studying risk factors that predispose people to getting those kinds of cancers.
And the question is, what's scientific about that study?
So I ask my students, what's scientific about epidemiology?
And they invariably say, person, place, and time.
In other words, descriptive factors about...
The epidemiology of these diseases, but descriptive factors are not scientific.
They're just descriptive.
In a sense, they're names and who, what, when, and so on.
What's analytic, what's scientific about epidemiology is what we call generalizability and representativeness.
This means that when we do a study, we don't study the entire world in order to know how the world works.
We study a sample of people with a disease, a sample of the general population.
And we try to measure what we're interested in measuring as accurately and objectively as possible.
And because we're only studying samples, we have to be assured that those samples are representative of the populations from which we do the sampling.
And that is the crux of epidemiology.
The scientific aspect is what we worry about, all the biases and confounding, things that distort the potential.
People in our study compared to who they were sampled from the general population or everybody with liver cancer or something.
That is the essence of what's scientific.
And you can see that most of my colleagues don't understand that.
My students certainly didn't.
One came pretty close, but didn't quite hit it.
And certainly the world doesn't understand that at all.
And this is the crux of why.
Epidemiology has been criticized because everybody asserts that we can't do generalizable representative work, and therefore you need randomized trials, which is nonsense.
And we do have our own scientific worldview, which is valid, that's been generated by the very thoughtful people in the field for maybe 60, 75 years already, if not longer.
So epidemiology is kind of a subtle discipline because everybody thinks they understand it and nobody actually understands it.
So epidemiology is sort of a method that can be applied to a variety of types of questions.
You can have epidemiology as relates to cancers, viruses.
And so it's a method, not a specialty in and of itself, if I can describe it that way.
Yes.
And in fact, you could have social scientists doing it.
You could have pollsters and political scientists doing it.
And they all do sample survey kind of research.
But what makes epidemiology special is our utter obsessiveness about the biases and confounding the distortions in this kind of sampling research that we agonize for our bread and butter day in, day out, to try to figure them out, adjust for them, control them, and all of that.
You know, when you're actually doing scientific research where you're measuring everything in the world, it gives you a better shot of being able to do that than when all you have is the socioeconomic status, how much money the family makes, and whether they voted Democrat or Republican, and you're trying to do political science research.
You don't have enough to work with to actually do the same kinds of valid studies that we do.
Okay, so interesting.
And so in the beginning of COVID hits...
And you're asked to join a board which is to determine the appropriate responses, the best methods to deal with this, the spread of it.
What did that mandate entail and how did it materialize?
Well, we had lots of different aspects.
We had a physicist.
We had an airplane engineer whose specialty is in jet engine design and cabin airflow and so on who knows all about.
How to make air move in certain directions under which qualities of, you know, quantities and qualities and all that stuff.
We had clinical psychologists.
We had my dean, Sen Vermund, was also on the committee.
He's an epidemiologist and pediatrician and infectious disease, worked in the AIDS epidemic very much.
And so we had a whole range, you know, clinical people, cardiologists and other clinicians in this group.
We had a very wide range of people contributing to.
Very lively discussions about the different topics that we considered.
All right.
And what was the scope of the work that you were supposed to do on this panel?
Was it for Harvard or was it mandated by the government?
It was just for the state of Connecticut, for the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering.
Okay.
All of us were Connecticut people.
All right.
And now you hit some controversy back in the early days of COVID.
What was that about?
Well, my job on the committee was to look at We're going to live dangerously.
We're going to give it five more minutes.
We talked about it the last time.
I didn't get into trouble for that.
So we'll live dangerously for now.
What got you into controversy?
And then we're going to move it over in four to five minutes.
My job was to look at outpatient treatment, whether there were any medications that could be used that would prevent people from getting hospitalized or dying from COVID.
And in fact, there was already evidence.
That was accruing at that time.
When I looked at the literature, I decided to do a formal review of every study that I could find, of which there were five at the time.
This is now April, May of 2020.
There were five studies that had looked at hydroxychloroquine.
There were, I think, two studies that looked at, or three that looked at remdesivir.
Those were the only medications, per se, that were available and in wide discussion at the time.
And so I reviewed all of the evidence, pro and con, both of those medications.
And then I put it into the context of committees of scientists in other disciplines who thought that they understood epidemiology and why they would make certain conclusions that are completely opposite to the conclusions that I, as a professional epidemiologist, would look at.
And I realized, so this paper, it's still on the American Journal of Epidemiology website.
If you Google Risch and American Journal of Epidemiology, you'll find it, that I'd say half the paper talks about why scientists in other disciplines don't understand epidemiology and therefore come to different conclusions.
And I think it boils down to that they trust lab science and don't trust epidemiology.
And we epidemiologists look at lab science as motivation, but not definitive.
And we only think that studies are definitive when we've studied them in people and seen how people are affected one way or the other.
And so all the nice lab theories you can mount and all the animal evidence you can mount doesn't prove anything to epidemiologists because we know there have been numbers of drugs and chemicals that have been found to be, for example, carcinogenic in animals that are not carcinogenic in people and vice versa.
And so you can't really generalize from animal evidence and from lab theories to people until you've tested it in people to see how things really work out.
And that's the main reason I'm an epidemiologist, because as much as I love theories and I use theories to motivate what I study, but I don't trust the theories until I verify them in people.
You know, the funny thing is, Harvey, when I look it up, let me see, share here.
I have...
Greater difficulty finding the original article.
I see a lot of responses.
Concerns about the special article on hydroxychloroquine.
And is this the one?
Oh, no.
So if you look at the original, that is the response of a number of co-editors of the journal, three of whom have financial conflicts of interest with pharma companies.
And all of the points that they raise are easily rebuttable.
In fact, I did, although the journal refused to publish my letter to the editor rebutting them.
The original article is there, and you just have to search it with a different...
I'll bring this down.
And at this point in time, Harvey, we're going to end this on YouTube, people.
Bring it over to Rumble.
I'm going to send the link in the chat one more time because we're going to get into the details and the nitty-gritty that can't be allowed on YouTube because...
YouTube knows more than doctors.
So bring it on over to Rumble right now, and I'm going to get to some questions from locals, and the discussion shall continue.
We're moving from YouTube.
See you all on Rumble now.
Now, Harvey, I won't make my standard joke about what I do when we go over to Rumble.
Okay, so your initial statements about...
I'm going to mispronounce that every time.
What was your initial statement?
What was your initial position that shocked the conscience of Yale and your colleagues to the point where they were all throwing you under the bus and saying you're a quack?
Well, what I said is that hydroxychloroquine had valid evidence of its efficacy in treating COVID outpatients.
In the first four or five days of symptoms of their illness, that reduced hospitalization and mortality risk substantially.
And further, that wasn't even necessary.
That was sufficient.
What was necessary is to show that it had no harm.
And that was demonstrated by numbers of studies involving hundreds of thousands of people studied for adverse cardiac And this is,
of course, in the context where this medication had been used for the past 50, 60 years by hundreds of millions of people and tens of billions of doses worldwide, you know, in adults, children, pregnant women, newborns.
Basically for malaria and in adults for rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, so on.
Day in, day out, standard safe medication.
On the top medications of the World Health Organization list of essential medications, routinely used by doctors out there who don't routinely prescribe cardiograms unless a person has a known history of cardiac arrhythmias.
It is an extremely safe medication.
So in the context of an emergency, when you have a medication that may work and you're sure that it's safe, then it's your obligation to start trying it.
You don't need randomized trials.
You barely need even any evidence of benefit.
You just need to know that it's safe and that it's not displacing something else that's known to be of greater benefit.
Since at that time there was nothing known of greater benefit and it was known to be safe, it should have been employed right from the outset.
The classic point, or the main point against your position, was that you were relying on, I think it was five studies at the time, and people were saying that these studies were inadequate for whatever the reason.
And I'm not mistaking it with ivermectin.
The issue was with hydroxychloroquine, the dose, the amount of the dose, or not concentration, but the size of the dose you'd have to give, or was that strictly with ivermectin, with hydroxychloroquine?
It was just a question of whether or not it would work.
And they determined, That it wouldn't work because there were no studies that concluded it could work?
Well, not exactly.
I mean, over time, there were fake studies that came out showing that it didn't work.
The initial studies were in hospital patients, and they asserted it didn't work in outpatients.
And the FDA put up a fraudulent website, which is still there today, saying, warning...
Black letter saying, warning, people should not take hydroxychloroquine as outpatients because of risk of cardiac irregularities.
And then you look underneath, and it says, we base this warning on adverse events seen in hospital patients.
This is the biggest flagrant fraud that I've ever seen, that doctors at that time, the FDA at that time, knew perfectly well that outpatient COVID is a flu-like illness with sore throat, fever, muscle aches, Cough, runny nose, loss of sense of taste and smell, and so on, tiredness.
Those are all flu-like symptoms.
That's what happens in COVID.
And after six to eight days after that, that starts and goes on in a small fraction of patients, they proceed to this pulmonary pneumonia-like disease called acute respiratory distress syndrome or an ARDS-like syndrome where the immune system goes.
Haywire and deposits a whole pile of immune debris in the lungs.
That pneumonia is inpatient hospitalized COVID and not the outpatient.
And so for the FDA to say that adverse events in hospitalized patients applied to outpatient COVID is fraud.
It's an outright fraud.
And they've gotten away with this for two years, more than two years now.
You know, how much sense does it take to look at this and say, it says not to use it in outpatients, but it bases on data from inpatients?
You can understand that if FDA had data on outpatients showing that it had some hazard, they would have said that in this warning, you know, website.
The fact that they didn't say that they had data on outpatients can only be because they didn't have data on outpatients, and they still don't have data on outpatients of any systematic harm.
So this is, you know, just...
Plain obvious, anybody who reads that page and takes half a second to think about what's being said there.
People should also appreciate the distinction.
Outpatient is obviously when they're not in the hospital, but before anyone happens to be admitted.
It's not after they're released from hospital, correct?
Correct, of course.
And I think this was in the real Anthony Fauci, but the whole justification for claiming that hydroxychloroquine didn't work was that they were administering it.
Allegedly, on inpatients once they had gotten past the point where, arguably, if it were ever going to be effective, it would have been effective.
And so they're saying, we administered hydroxychloroquine in inpatients when they're already suffering probably from a great many other ailments as well.
We administer it to them then.
It does nothing.
They all die or they die.
And so we conclude that it's not only not effective.
When applying it or administering it to an inpatient who's already on death's door, but it's also potentially lethal, and therefore we conclude not to even give it as an early treatment to outpatients who are not yet at the point where it will do no good.
That was the logic?
Yes, that was exactly the logic.
And were they administering it in a dose that was in excess of what would otherwise be the recommend or the...
The test amount or the amount to be administered to an outpatient which would have been lesser at an earlier stage?
In one of the studies in Brazil, they gave toxic doses.
In a study in England, they also gave toxic doses.
There has been a lot of public discussion.
The Brazilian investigators, I think, are under investigation for excessive mortality risks created by their incorrect dosing.
It takes very large doses.
The medication is very safe.
In general.
And the doses recommended by doctors who use it, typically 400 milligrams a day can be more at the beginning.
Those doses are very safe, can be continued for two weeks, three weeks if necessary.
But in general, it works in five or six days.
And I don't know if we want to get into too much of the detail, but what is the theory for why hydroxychloroquine would work if administered early on enough?
To someone who just contracted COVID?
Well, there's probably a dozen different mechanisms why it works.
In fact, it's not just given by itself, although it shows evidence of benefit by itself, but it's given in a regimen.
Normally, when you treat a patient, you're not just going to give them one drug and say, that's enough.
You kind of throw at them everything you think that's compatible and safe to use that's going to get them through their illness as fast and as safely as possible.
And the same is true here, all viral illnesses that we've ever treated.
Have multiple agents.
You know, AIDS is treated with a combination of antiviral agents.
This is a virus and gets a combination.
And the initial recommended recipe was hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin or doxycycline.
Other doctors have added ivermectin to that at times.
They're compatible, can be used together.
Some steroids, inhaled steroids that are mild steroids.
Other medications.
That have been, you know, used by some doctors in the recipe that also have shown very good benefit, vitamin D, vitamin C, aspirin, and other anti-clotting medications because we know that both the virus as well as the vaccine.
For COVID, both increased clotting risks and therefore aspirin and other anti-clotting medications have utility when used by doctors appropriately.
So there's a whole regimen of these things.
I would also say that since the paper that I wrote in May of 2020 came out, there were another four studies, five studies that came out, published.
In the medical literature, every one of them showing exactly the same thing of substantial benefit of hydroxychloroquine and reducing hospitalization and mortality risks.
Now, nine studies show this.
More than 40,000 patients studied in these studies, every one showing significant reduced risk of hospitalization and mortality.
The medication, when used in the first five days or so, on average, cuts the risk of hospitalization by half, cuts the risk of mortality by three quarters.
This is beyond all doubt.
There's no possibility that this is not true.
I'll impress some people out there with my hypochondriacal knowledge.
The zinc, from what I understand, it reduces replication.
Steroids reduces inflammation.
What does the HCQ do on its own or in conjunction with these other treatments?
Well, one of the things, if you remember, some years ago, we were all being told to buy zinc lozenges and use them for treating the flu because there was a theory that the zinc would somehow keep the flu virus from its enzyme from replicating and allowing the virus to replicate.
Now, we know that zinc by itself didn't work all that well.
And the reason for that is zinc has a hard time getting into cells.
It doesn't get through the outside of cells to the inside.
If you recall, an interesting fact is, I don't know if you've ever seen the shampoo Head& Shoulders.
Head& Shoulders has an active ingredient, zinc pyrithione.
Pyrithione is a chemical that acts as an ionophore that transports the zinc from outside the cells, the yeast or whatever cells that infect the scalp that cause the dandruff.
It transfers the zinc from the outside of those cells to the inside of the cells of this yeast.
And that's what's needed is an ionophore.
And in fact, hydroxychloroquine is a zinc ionophore and works to transport the zinc from outside of the lung epithelial cells and the oropharynx, the nose and mouth and throat epithelial cells, to get the zinc.
into the cells so that zinc can interrupt the replication enzyme of the virus from making more copies of the virus.
Harvey, I mean, we're going to bounce back and forth because the question is now, and I think you've already answered it, since two and a half years ago, there have been other studies.
There have been things which showed everyone already knew that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin in proper doses was very safe.
By and large, it had been administered for decades in hundreds of millions of people.
We're going to get back to why no one would want to explore these ideas back in 2020, and I know the answer, and it's a three-letter EUA.
But what studies have come out since that have reaffirmed or at the very least confirmed the potential efficacy of all of this?
Have there been more studies?
Well, the two largest studies, one done in Saudi Arabia with about 8,000.
And one done in Iran with about 27,000 patients, I believe.
And you might think, oh, these are foreign countries, and we don't believe science in foreign countries, because what do they know about science?
But it turns out that Saudi Arabia, over the last 10 years, has modernized its medical care system.
It's all computerized.
It's set up clinics all over the country for COVID, and it has unique identifiers.
For every person in the country, and everybody gets the same medical care through the country's medical care system.
And so everybody that came for treatment for COVID got enrolled into that system.
And so everybody's status as to their symptoms, whether they were hospitalized, whether they died, what medications they got, it's all computerized into their system.
And so everything is very, very accurately known.
The same is true in Iran.
Iran did not have a countrywide Treatment system like Saudi Arabia did, but it had large regions of the country where it had these clinics set up widely all over the country.
And so they did the same thing in their regions and compiled the same information.
And so these studies are actually quite straightforward because you're looking at medication use of one exposure.
You're not looking at a whole questionnaire with 30 pages of questions.
You're looking at a very narrow range of How old the person was, what their gender was, whether they got the medication or not, whether they were later hospitalized.
Hospitalization is in the medical care system regardless of whether they go to the clinic or not.
That fact is part of the medical care system.
Whether they died is part of the medical care system, whether they go to the clinic or not.
So all of those things are linked together in those studies and they become very accurate studies representing what those populations did in that context.
And so they were actively using these?
Verboten medications and the results were what?
Yes.
They both showed very reduced risk of hospitalization and mortality in those studies.
Very strong beneficial associations in those studies.
Has the West taken note of that yet or still in strict denial mode?
So this gets to a whole topic of discussion, which is that for 30 or 40 years, we have been living in fake science.
When it comes to medical research, and that fake science has been called evidence-based medicine.
Now, the reason it's fake science is because we've been peddled plausibility and told that it was science.
But you have to realize that plausibility is stuff that normal everyday people, lay people, think that seems reasonable, and so they accept it as fact.
But plausible things are not necessarily accurate or scientific.
And even doctors have fallen for this in terms of evidence-based medicine.
Evidence-based medicine came in and proclaimed itself the pinnacle of scientific knowledge, as if medical knowledge had zero at the start of this movement for evidence-based medicine.
You can imagine that doctors before then had accreted knowledge since the ancients, had done scientific research since at least early 1800s.
Medical journals started in the early 1800s, and if not earlier.
And doctors talk to each other and they compare what they do.
They see the results in their patients.
And so a whole literature and knowledge base for medicine occurred before this so-called movement for evidence-based medicine.
Evidence-based medicine came in and proclaimed being the priests of knowledge, of scientific knowledge, that only randomized trials conveyed knowledge, scientific knowledge.
Now, this is plausibility.
They said, If you randomize people between a treatment and a placebo, that the only thing that's different between them will be the treatment.
Everything else will average out to be the same.
And everybody believes this.
Doctors believe that.
Scientists believe that.
Government regulators believe that it's possible.
Doesn't it sound like it should be right?
The answer is...
Yeah, all things being equal, if you have two...
Okay.
The answer is, it's not.
And the reason that it's not...
It's because what I started at the outset is nobody understands epidemiology.
And the problem is that if you randomize large enough numbers of people so that the events that occur in the trial, if you're looking at hospitalizations after people are vaccinated, then you have to have at least 100 hospitalizations in the vaccinated group and 100 hospitalizations in the non-vaccinated group.
When you randomize enough people to get 150, 200 or more of these outcome events, then randomization works.
Okay, so here we have the Pfizer-Moderna trials, which randomized, what, about 20,000 people to the vaccine and 20,000 people to placebo.
But that assumes that they were, in fact, properly randomized.
Well, let's say, okay?
Okay.
But then you get 12...
Hospitalizations in the vaccine group and 20 or 30 or whatever in the placebo group, that's nonsense.
That is not randomization.
That is not adequate for randomization.
And the way to see this is flip a coin 10 times.
You flip a coin 10 times, it's very likely that you'll get seven heads and three tails by chance.
That's the way coin flipping is.
Seven heads and three tails means that heads is more than twice as likely to come up as tails.
Okay.
Well, is your medication more than twice as likely to put you in the hospital or not?
Well, if it could happen by chance because you didn't have enough events, then the randomization didn't work well.
And that's the problem, that people assume randomization works well without paying attention, that you need to have hundreds of people.
As the outcome events in order for the randomization to work.
Randomization doesn't work in small samples.
And so what this has done is it's created these massive literatures of studies that get published in Lancet, New England Journal, JAMA, and other high-profile medical journals purporting to be state-of-the-art, high-quality science of these randomized trials that are basically poor quality.
For two reasons.
Number one, they don't have enough outcome events for the randomization to work.
Number two, three reasons.
Number two, the authors didn't pay attention to the fact that the treated subjects and the non-treated subjects weren't comparable.
The whole point of the randomization is to make everybody comparable.
So these randomized trials usually have the first table of the paper where they compare the vaccine people to the placebo people.
And in that table, they have a column to ask, did these people differ by age, by chance, by gender?
Did they differ by chance?
But that's the wrong question because they randomized them.
So they had to differ by chance.
The question is, were the older people more than twice as likely to be vaccinated as younger people?
Well, if you only had 12 outcome events in one group and so on and the other, then of course you could get twice as many people.
Who are old in the vaccinated group than the placebo group.
They're just not enough for the randomization to work.
So this is the issue, that randomized trials with small number of outcomes are weak studies, and they're worse than non-randomized trials.
And the reason for that is in non-randomized trials, epidemiologists who do them know they have to adjust for all of these differences.
They know they have to use statistical methods to control for all of these.
Incomparabilities between the people who got the treatment or the vaccine and the people who didn't.
So that's part of doing the statistics that epidemiologists understand.
But the randomized trial people don't because they think the randomization works perfectly and they don't adjust for anything.
And from what I've also understood just in terms of which events were being written off or excluded for other reasons, everyone has to listen to the real Anthony Fauci, the book, or read it if you're still into reading with your eyes.
But Harvey, going right back to the beginning, I think there were very few people who truly appreciated the requirements for pharma companies to be issued EUA authorizations, emergency use authorizations for medication.
For novel treatments.
And the determinate criteria was that these emergency use authorizations would only be granted if there was no existing treatment already available.
I think very few people understood that at the time, including myself.
You know, Robert Barnes and I, we talked about it.
And even when he mentioned it for the first time, I was like, okay, it sounds relevant, sounds important, and now I understand it.
In your position and within the medical scientific community, did people fully appreciate this?
And if they did fully appreciate the requirement, the criteria to issue an EUA, were they all just operating on the basis that it is necessary to do this so as to get to the EUA?
Or was it an unspoken secret?
Or did people not truly appreciate the sinister reasons for which there would be an interest to write off Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin in combination with whatever, given what pharma companies wanted out of this.
Well, so we thought that in the summer of 2020, we obtained a copy of the slides that were given to an internal CDC presentation, maybe it was an FDA presentation, that talked about whether the emergency use vaccines could be used in the context of there being An available effective medication in general use.
That was a descriptor in one of the slides for conditions for issuing emergency use authorizations.
However, what we saw after that is that the FDA did not act that way at all, that it kept approving things even though there were other things already there.
So after one vaccine was approved, it approved the second vaccine.
After remdesivir was there, it approved the vaccine, and so on.
It was giving EUAs kind of like candy to the ones that it favored and blocking EUAs for the agents that it disfavored and not holding to this.
But what was worse from all of this is that there were two petitions to FDA to issue an emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine, both from the Henry Ford Hospital doctors and scientists who had evidence from their clinical trial.
Done early in hospital use, the patients who got the medication within the first 24 to 48 hours of being in the hospital also showed a 50% reduced risk of ICU and mortality.
And so they petitioned the FDA for an emergency use authorization.
And the FDA twice wrote back, "We will not issue an emergency use authorization until you show us significant results from multiple large-scale randomized control trials." Now, this violated federal law because in 2016, Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act.
And in section 3022, paragraph 3022 of the Cures Act, it says specifically that the agency review of medications for approval should take into account all available scientific evidence, that it should not be restricted only to randomized controlled trials.
Congress passed this because there had been at least a decade of pressure on Congress that the FDA was stonewalling cancer treatments.
And people with cancer, their family members, were begging the FDA to approve new medications because people were dying and they weren't being offered anything.
So they were petitioning the FDA to release medications sooner that had evidence of their benefit without waiting for these long, drawn-out, large-scale randomized trials.
And so this was put into effect, passed by Congress as congressional legislation.
And then FDA came out and just totally ignored this in 2020 when they were demanding randomized controlled trials for hydroxychloroquine when the same...
Fake randomized trials for remdesivir, where the outcome of the study was changed in the middle of the study, which is an absolute no-no in conducting randomized trials, yet that was done and just ignored and so on.
And the study was not run to its completion.
There's lots of ways of disabling randomized trials by sleight of hand, basically, even in public view, let alone that they're being too small.
Harvey, I'm sorry to interrupt you.
Why would doctors have needed any authorization for an off-label use of an already approved medication?
They didn't.
And so, this is what I have a great difficulty appreciating.
This is like the Bar Association telling lawyers how they have to deal with each and every...
Telling all lawyers how to deal with their files when each file is an individual file with individual facts.
How does anybody...
I mean, what's the medical community saying at this point in time when the governing body is basically coming in and saying, replacing the individual judgment of the individual practitioner to say, you can't even use what already exists off-label, which is something that's done all the time.
What was the reaction of the medical community at the time this is happening?
So 85% of medication use is off-label.
Doctors take responsibility for administering medications off-label.
It's an agreement between the patient and the doctor.
The doctor explains, gives informed consent, explains the risks and the benefits, and the patient elects to follow what the doctor recommends, and that's how these medications are used.
Doctors are not going to recommend things that are hazardous and don't work because they pretty quickly pile on lawsuits, you know, even though the patients are understanding it, but the literature has to suggest there's some potential benefit.
And that's how medicine is practiced, until COVID hits.
And these draconian factors, pronouncements by government and regulatory agencies, making so-called recommendations.
CDC makes recommendations, and everybody hides behind potential legal exposure and is afraid to test the water against the CDC regulations.
And so doctors were petrified.
We're afraid to do that because we'll be criticized or worse by regulatory agencies.
Now, of course, we've seen that metastasize where California is blocking doctors from giving informed consent on vaccines or on outpatient treatment to their patients.
Doctors can't practice medicine in California in an ethical way because A stupid pediatrician legislator in California thinks he knows better than all public health, all doctors, and so on.
And he's going to legislate medical ethics.
Harvey, they made the example out of you.
When was it that you had your issue?
It was August 2020.
They made an example out of you.
Decades, you know, untarnished reputation, besmirched and libeled in the media.
Who's going to want to put themselves in the crosses like that?
Just be quiet and do what the CDC says.
And it's not my fault that people are dying and I can't give them the treatment that I think they should get.
If you can tell me behind closed doors, are doctors complaining?
Are doctors saying this is out of control, but I don't want to be the nail sticking up against the hammer?
Well, so there's like in a totalitarian regime.
There's three classes of people.
There are true believers, that's about 30% or 40%.
There are the people who mouth the allowable public statements, and there are the people who are quiet and know the truth.
That's another 30%.
And the same applies to doctors, that there are true believers.
They have been so Stockholm syndromized that they're going along with everything because they cannot allow their...
Psyches to know how much damage they've caused, and so they have to believe in what they've been doing.
Then there's the people who know or have some ideas of what the truth is, but they're afraid to tell their patients.
Some of them will actually tell their patients quietly that they don't really believe this, but they're forced to say publicly what they're saying.
And then there are the doctors in the groups that I've been involved with, the hundreds, the thousands of doctors who've been involved.
Who are actually trying to treat their patients as best they can, quietly without making a big fuss, but still doing it, you know, and succeeding by and large.
You have telemedicine groups that are succeeding quite well.
The MyFreeDoctor.com telemedicine group has treated close to 300,000 patients from COVID over the last two and a half years, with the last I heard, six deaths out of treating 300,000 patients.
Okay, so...
If you're not a true believer, you're going to send your parents to that group instead of the doctor who refuses to do anything.
It's phenomenal.
Was there a meaningful portion of doctors who actually didn't even understand what would be required to the criteria for issuing the EUA?
Like, are there some doctors who just, they know certain things about medicine, but they don't care about the politics, and so they want to know nothing about this?
Yes.
There's a large fraction of doctors who are like that.
Basically, doctors' time is so valuable that it's very difficult for them to consult the literature from the beginning to review all the original studies to make sense of it themselves.
And so they rely on derivative information coming from pharma reps, drug reps, or from review articles, or from their medical association pronouncements.
Or their specialty advisory groups, you know, that put out pronouncements.
They publish pronouncements in the medical literature claiming to be authoritative.
And as you know, anytime you find one of those statements, as Michael Crichton once said, grab your wallet and run the other direction.
There is no such thing as consensus in science.
If there's consensus, there's fraud.
You know, it's out of date.
I mean, and that's the truth about science.
Science is rough and tumble.
It's supposed to be rough and tumble.
It's supposed to have people arguing for things that aren't true, even just to be provocative, to push the people to the limits to prove what they have to say is actually true.
That's the way it's supposed to be.
And I was going to say something else.
You did mention, you made an interesting point.
It's like, once they've issued the EUA for one vaccine, what's the rationale for issuing it for two and three?
And every pharma company gets their own EUA, even though it can only be issued when there's no existing treatment or existing remedy.
And then once they've approved one, there's an existing remedy.
How do the other ones get it?
Not a lot of rationality.
To things that have happened over the last two or two and a half years.
No question about that.
We've seen the rapid descent into madness.
So your specialty is epidemiology.
You have an expertise in cancer.
The question that a lot of people are asking is, look, we think we're seeing a lot more certain types of events occurring.
Sudden death in adults now being coined sudden adult death syndrome.
Although the spin is that the terms always existed.
It's only now that it's spiking.
Pun intended.
Have you noticed any increased statistical anomalies that are noteworthy that we can discuss?
Well, I have not done any objective, thorough review of that.
I can only say what I've experienced in the literature.
And I would say that in my entire life, before COVID, I've known of only one person who died suddenly.
From a cardiac arrhythmia, irregularity, that was unexpected.
She was in her 40s and a colleague at Yale.
And these tragic things are extremely rare.
They do happen, but they're extremely rare.
So that's one person in my whole lifetime, or whole adult lifetime, when I would have been aware of this kind of thing, that I knew about.
And now, we're seeing...
One or two a day, practically, in the sports and entertainment world.
These are people who have public visibility.
And so when things happen to them, their events are more publicly visible.
You know, if the deputy minister of commerce of Sri Lanka died in his 30s, you might not know about it because it's not publicly visible.
But if the head of their soccer team did, the captain of the soccer team did, then I suppose you'd be more likely to find out about it.
So there is some over-representation.
of visible people when this happens to them in general lay media.
Nevertheless, the numbers are so astronomical that it cannot be denied that there is a great excess of these events that have been happening over the last two years.
I'm not sharing an article every time it happens because there's no definitive causal link.
Another Netflix comedian suddenly passed away natural causes.
They're calling it...
You're a doctor.
You've been in the industry for 40 years now.
I would call it Sudden Adult Coincidence Syndrome.
I may know the answer to the question.
Had you heard of the term Sudden Adult Death Syndrome before 2022?
No.
That's not to say it didn't exist, because I'm sure we can go back and find the term existed.
But nobody knew about it because it was such a...
They called it heart attacks.
It was called undiagnosed heart condition.
Now creating a term for it.
And Dr. Ish, have you heard, before two years ago, were they telling young people to go get their hearts checked in articles saying it's an urgent thing, go get your heart checked?
No, because it's rare.
Are these at the level of one in a million?
Or less than that?
I don't know.
All that I can say is major MSN publications urging young people to go get their hearts checked.
But now, some statistics that we do know, all-cause mortality is up in the last, I think, 2021, they said, correct?
Second, I think, third and fourth quarters of 2021, going into 2022.
And now, not to sound like the conspiracy theorists will say there could be good explanations for why this is not strictly related.
To the Fauci jab.
I mean, this could be a conjunction of events.
I would say either explanation is damning for the government because it's either from this, it's either adverse effects from the vaccine or it's adverse effects from the government lockdowns over the last two years, damned one way or damned the other.
Dr. Rish, do you have any input, any feedback, any, not insider knowledge, but any independent knowledge as to what's going on?
No, I don't.
I can only draw the same conclusions that you have, although it's kind of independent of our country.
It's been seen in Germany, probably other places.
The four or five insurance companies have published or provided information about their insurance payouts.
So one of them, I think, I've forgotten the name of the first one that reported.
It was the number of deaths in age.
18 to 64-year-olds, working-age people, had died in 40% excess in third and fourth quarters 2021.
And then other insurance companies reported total amount of payout, money payouts, had also gone into strong excess in that period.
So between numbers of deaths and the amount of payout for deaths has been gravely in excess.
Now, and it's not just in the U.S., so it's not just what we did, it's what other places did.
And these things are, you know, is it just coincidence?
Well, we've been told that everything is coincidence.
And coincidence is kind of thin these days.
Harvey, you've got to read this.
This is the fact check, and we'll go very quickly through it.
I can't find the original stat.
COVID-19 vaccines caused a 40% increase in deaths identified by a life insurance company.
They fact check it false.
People have already seen this before.
They'll know where this is going.
No, COVID-19 vaccines aren't responsible for an increase in deaths.
The statistic is right.
The causation is wrong.
One American CEO, Scott Davison, said life insurance industry data indicates death rates among working-age people were up 40% compared to pre-pandemic rates.
Social media users have suggested COVID-19 vaccines rather than the illness itself are responsible.
So we agree on the statistics.
We're just disagreeing on the cause.
But that is, in fact, they're up 40% among working-aged individuals.
That statistic is undeniable.
It's undenied.
It's factual.
What's it called?
The people who determine statistics for insurance companies?
Actual.
It's actuarial.
But the causation is what's at issue here.
As if it's either one thing or the other.
Both are damning for the government.
Okay.
Adverse effects.
I can call you Harvey and it's not disrespectful, right?
No, I'm fine.
Okay, good.
I keep bouncing back between Harvey and Dr. Risch.
It just sounds crazy.
I'll do Dr. Risch for effect.
But Harvey, adverse effects from the vaccines.
What do the statistics show up until now?
Well, they're huge.
Even if you go to the poorly reporting...
VAERS database or the yellow card database in UK and Eurovigilance data, they're all showing very large numbers of serious adverse effects and mortality.
The 30,000 deaths in the United States attributed to the vaccines, that is not coincidence, I'm sorry, but whether that's accurate or not, there's some large numbers of deaths that totally orders of magnitude larger than deaths from all vaccines of all previous years combined.
So the problem is that I see this, and I want to return to another topic in a minute, but the problem that I see in this is the callousness of a government thinking, well, when you're at war, there's going to be casualties of civilians, collateral damage, and that's just a fact.
You want to minimize it, but it's a fact of life, and so you have to...
Be able to tolerate that.
And so everybody who's died or gotten injured, that's collateral damage from vaccinating all the people whose lives were saved.
Okay, in order to do that, you need a formal risk-benefit analysis.
That has never been done.
There has not been a formal risk-benefit analysis done by the government, by the FDA, by the CDC, anybody.
Only recently has a formal risk-benefit analysis been done in college-age people.
And that analysis, which was published recently, I think the authors were Bardos and colleagues, showed that in college-age people, that serious adverse events leading to hospitalization from vaccination created about, I think, about a five-fold higher risk than from COVID itself.
And so that clearly shows that...
On that collateral damage basis reasoning, that the vaccines are in the negative category, that they don't, as a societal measure, provide benefit.
But there's one big issue that we haven't discussed that I think is really huge at this point.
And that is that you might have noticed that the presidential spokesperson was talking about hospitalizations.
And the benefit of the vaccine in hospitalizations and mortality.
And she never said anything about the benefit of the so-called booster or update in terms of reducing infection transmission.
And this is because the CDC has now come out on August 11th saying what we've been saying for more than a year, which is the vaccines are useless as a public health method of controlling the infection spread.
We've been seeing the failure of the vaccines over time, that the vaccines provide benefit in reducing transmission starting about two weeks after vaccination and lasting a variable period after the second shot lasting three to four months, after the third shot lasting about two months, two to three months, after the fourth shot lasting about a month, before they go to zero and perhaps turn negative, an increasing risk of getting infected.
And so the CDC finally said on August 11th, That two shots of the vaccine are useless for suppressing transmission in the population, and boosters only provide what it called transient benefit that wanes.
Now, my definition of transient means a short period of time, and any public health measure that only works for a short period of time means it's useless as a public health measure.
So the CDC was saying that the vaccines are useless for transmission.
Now, why this is important is the government has no...
Interest.
It has no compelling interest in doing anything other than preventing transmission.
The whole Jacobson case in 1905 was predicated on mandating vaccines in order to prevent transmission.
That the government has no interest in making you take a treatment that saves you from being hospital or from dying.
We already know this.
The government doesn't make smokers take anti-smoking treatments to save the half a million people who die every year from smoking.
The government doesn't mandate that you have to take statins.
You know, the government doesn't mandate treatments.
Not yet, Harvey.
But that is the rights of people to determine their own medical treatments.
However, so the benefit of the vaccine in terms of state interest must be limited to transmission.
And the CDC now has said that the...
Vaccines do not result in benefit for reducing spread, transmission.
And that is the end of the story.
That is the end of vaccine mandates, or at least it should be the end of vaccine mandates.
Because if there is no authority, so up to this point, everybody pointed to the CDC.
CDC makes this suggestion.
Everybody says, we're following it because if we get sued, we can pass the buck and say, just following orders, just doing what the CDC said.
Now they can't do that because the CDC is no longer saying the vaccines prevent spread.
But the argument is going to be, just to push back and play literal devil's advocate, it reduces severity and it reduces chances of hospitalization.
Therefore, for the greater good, not to overwhelm the healthcare facilities, vaccine mandates are justified if it's remotely demonstrable that it reduces the risk of hospitalization.
At that time, set aside the potential negative dip later on.
So that would be the argument.
Well, the argument against that is that this is what strict scrutiny in law or the Jacobson criteria call narrowly tailored and not arbitrary and capricious.
And for the government to mandate vaccines based on keeping hospital occupancy down.
And thereby take away your fundamental rights to choose whether you want to be vaccinated or not.
It's not narrowly tailored enough.
And the government could have spent the billions and trillions of dollars that it spent on vaccines and building more hospital capacity.
Oh, yeah.
Well, hey, they built the field hospitals.
They never got used.
Right.
In fact, now the hospitals are empty of significant COVID patients in most places in the United States that doctors are telling me they haven't seen a COVID ICU patient in months since February or March.
How familiar are you or able to explain what they're calling the updated vaccine?
It's just like plug-in software and it updates.
How familiar are you with the technology, if we can call it that, the science behind the booster, how it targets the Omicron variant?
My understanding is that the spike protein sequence, the RNA coding for the spike protein, has been adjusted to reflect.
Numbers of the mutations that are common to BA4 and BA5 variants, sub-variants of the Omicron virus.
And so it's now coding more closely for a spike protein.
So the vaccine will have cells make a spike protein that looks more like BA4 and BA5.
And so the immune system, if it makes antibodies to that, will be more able to bind to those The spike proteins of those strains.
And that's a theory.
Of course, the vaccine was misdescribed as a booster or an update.
It's half booster and half update.
It still has the original strain vaccine in it for half of its content and the updated one for the other half.
So it's both.
The conclusions you want from that.
So I think it was with Dr. Francis Christian.
Where he explained, or at least for the first time, as far as I'm concerned, illustrated the potential risk in that you're triggering an immunological response, but only with respect to one aspect of the virus, whereas the rest of your immune system is not responding in a similar manner,
And therefore, these spike proteins, which trigger a specific response in the absence of an overall immunological response, actually causes certain problems, which I think is what people are saying are the potential adverse reactions to the vaccine.
Well, I'll say I'm not an expert in that,
but my understanding is that the spike protein, And so,
in very small vessels, Clotting sequence is a chain reaction that can propagate clots to be larger and larger.
And if you shut off the blood flow to the end parts of the blood system that get into deep into these organs, you can damage the function of those organs.
So you can damage the function of the heart.
You can reduce the respiration of the heart.
The heart needs oxygen continuously in order to function.
That's the main Function of the big blood flow to the heart, the same with the brain.
So if you shut off little parts of oxygenation to parts of those organs, they get damaged, potentially damaged.
Whether this is reversible is unclear.
This is one of the rationales for people taking anticoagulants like aspirin and other medications, either when getting vaccinated or in treating COVID or in long COVID or in adverse events after vaccination.
Part of the rationale for that, and hospital patients too, the rationale for treating blood coagulation is to stave off this abnormal clotting problem that occurs.
So that's a main component that's related to the toxicity of the spike protein itself.
And now people often say, and I want to make sure I understand it, that myocarditis, pericarditis, whether or not you can have a, what do they not call it, a minor case, that the...
The molecules or whatever it is do not reproduce on the heart.
I think they call them cardidal.
What's the word for that?
Well, the strands of the muscle in the heart.
That's true.
They don't.
They can be enlarged with cardiovascular exercise, like aerobic exercise.
But in general, I'm pretty sure that they don't generate more strands of the muscle fiber.
Okay, and which is why when people say, like, it's neither temporary nor, what's the word that they used?
Minor.
Mild.
Mild.
Sorry, that's the word.
I'm an idiot.
Mild.
The fact that these people are in hospital for three days, they get up, walk out, seem like they're normal, doesn't make it mild because 10 years down the road, they're going to have a substantial increased risk of mortality from what happened to them now.
And it really requires very careful analysis.
Young males...
In the age range should have their high sensitivity troponin levels measured after vaccination just to be sure that they haven't suffered something that's asymptomatic that they never knew that they had.
I would recommend that all athletic people refrain from exercise for six months after each vaccine.
I'll say thank my lucky stars.
Touch wood.
I'm over 12 months out.
And I'm exercising.
I mean, I'm so neurotic, Harvey.
Now I'm going to think maybe 12 months is not enough.
Just hypothetically, how long after the last vaccination does one have to wait before they can safely say, if something bad were going to happen to me and it didn't happen yet, I'm out of the woods?
We have no idea.
This is why you do seven-year studies to catalog everything that happens before you release it to the public.
The traditional vaccines have always had long-duration studies, and we didn't do that here before the massive release.
Now, I would say for normal people who don't push their heart function to the limit, that the risks are perhaps less.
But for professional athletes who are pushing their capabilities to the limit...
That is where you run into this potential risks that you need to really be paying more attention to.
They need to have their cardiac function monitored.
All professional athletes that have been vaccinated should have their cardiac function evaluated very carefully.
What you just said, you say that?
All of a sudden, my left hand is getting tingly here.
I'm joking, but I'm not joking.
It's something different.
OCD and hypochondriase here, I have it under wraps.
But the studies, now that you mentioned the studies, this booster, this updated vaccine is coming out, and the studies, as far as I understand, it's not a talking point headline.
Eight mice.
And the mice all got COVID, as it turns out, so it didn't really help the mice very much.
You know, it's like a long time ago, I saw a cartoon by the science cartoonist Sidney Harris that says, We showed two scientists looking around in plants, and it says, "We only test it in plants, so we have to do lots and lots of extrapolating." So they're testing it in mice.
They're looking at antibody levels in mice.
They're extrapolating that to antibody levels in humans.
They're extrapolating antibody levels in humans to actual immunity benefit in humans.
This is plausibility run amok.
Like I said, I do studies in humans because that's what's definitive, not all these theories, not all these lab studies.
They needed to test this for immunity benefit and harm reduction in humans and not extrapolate from eight mice.
This is what shocks my conscience as a lawyer, not as a doctor.
They're going to say, look, we don't need to do the same trials we did with Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson& Johnson in the beginning.
Those are done.
We got our FDA approval.
So it's all safe.
All that we're doing is tinkering with that which already got FDA approval, so we don't need to go back and reinvent the wheel, so we don't need to test this booster for safety.
All that really matters is whether or not it's efficient in terms of preventing transmission or whatever.
And let's just say, Harvey, hypothetically, it's effective.
Let's just say it...
Prevents transmission, reduces transmission, reduces hospitalizations, whatever the goalpost has been shifted to on that given day.
But how can anybody say we don't need to test for safety when you're administering a third, fourth, in some cases a fifth dose on an individual who's already had one, two, three, or four doses before, where we're saying, okay, the foundation of the house is good for 800 pounds, so we don't need to check it again.
And now let's slap 1,600 pounds.
Let's slap another 800 pounds on it as though we don't have to test for the aggregate cumulative effect of laying weight upon weight upon weight on foundation.
Whereas it's not inconceivable that the cumulative effect of these boosters can have a detrimental effect in and of themselves on their own, setting aside the only thing they seem to be testing for with these eight mice, whether or not the booster is remotely effective.
Well, so what you're addressing is the actual evidence of safety.
If we knew that we're safe, for example, let's say we assume that flu vaccines are safe.
We don't have to do a randomized trial of the safety of flu vaccines every year because we accept in general that flu vaccines have been pretty safe.
You know, the number of deaths from flu vaccines has been very, very small.
Certainly orders of magnitude smaller than what we've seen for COVID vaccines.
So we accept that.
So we allow flu vaccines to be modified every year and whatever.
But the problem is that there's now been documented a huge history of suppression of adverse events from vaccines.
And, you know, you mentioned Bobby Kennedy's book looking at all of the behind-the-scenes factors and so on that's been going on with the vaccination program and COVID.
And it turns out I recently finished reading Mary Holland's book from Children's Health Defense The HPV vaccine from maybe a decade ago, and all of the same shenanigans that have been done in the COVID era were done then.
It's like reading everything from COVID, just with COVID being changed to cervical cancer, and the virus going from SARS-CoV-2 to HPV.
All of the things, the major problem was the denial of serious adverse events.
The absolute denial by the government, by the manufacturers, by everybody, by the academics, academic doctors, everywhere.
The major denial of adverse events occurring.
It's like, don't believe you're lying data.
These people are damaged.
or killed from these things and they're just considered collateral damage and we won't talk about it.
We won't even admit to collateral damage.
We won't tell you that there is collateral damage and we just have to allow for it in order for the greater good.
They won't even go that far.
They just deny the collateral damage.
And so this just got ramped up in the COVID era now where it's basically astronomical that this collateral damage is there and it's in complete denial by every agency.
And the most interesting thing that's happened is That in Israel, the Ministry of Health finally got around or exceeded to comprising a committee to look at adverse events in people vaccinated in Israel.
They formed the committee in December of 2021.
The committee compiled a report.
It presented that report to the Ministry of Health.
The Ministry of Health sat on it for two months and refused to discuss it.
The report had evidence.
A substantial number of serious adverse events from the vaccines.
And then what happened is two things.
Number one, that there was a discussion of this report in the Ministry of Health that actually had somebody present who recorded video and audio recorded the discussion in that.
And the discussion of that said, how are we going to present this information to the public when it shows That we knew about these adverse events from the vaccines.
And after we knew about them, we still told people to get vaccinated.
And we were denied it.
Yes.
And Harvey, just so that nobody has to rely on your summary of it, I'll expand the window so we can read it.
I can understand 10% of this in Hebrew.
And I can read it with an Israeli accent, but I won't.
Here, where we need...
Here, where we need...
Because there are not many cases that we said, okay, it's okay, there's a word, but we'll be able to get rid of it.
That's what I want to say to you, to understand how we're doing it and how we're showing it in a way right way.
And not that there will be a government.
Now, now, now, now, you said everything will be able to get rid of it.
And now I'll see what's going on.
Basically, I hope...
Harvey, can you read the text?
I don't know if...
Yes.
Basically, he says we need to protect ourselves from legal cases if we release this information.
And this went further because she's not the minister of health, but she's like a deputy minister or the minister of COVID or something like that in Israel.
Sharon Alroy-Price testified to the FDA, I believe, and said after she knew of this report that there were no...
Serious adverse events from the vaccine in Israel.
So she basically lied to her government testimony to the United States.
And then they kept recommending it, knowing what they knew, not disclosing what they knew.
Correct.
And now we've got to frame reality.
We've got to frame the statistics to fit reality, but in a non-litigious way.
The VAERS findings, by the way, because a lot of people are going to say, well, the VAERS, they're reports.
They're not proven.
And with the way we've been interpreting statistics to yield the results that we want, they're going to say, look, people reported, they're unconfirmed, yada, yada.
I mean, what's the response to that?
I don't want to feed the answer that I think is the answer.
What's the response to, these are just reports, so there's a lot more now because they're vaccinating a lot more people now.
Well, so...
The penalty for filing a false report to VAERS is a $5,000 fine.
I think that the number of false reports is very small.
Secondly, every report that's filed to VAERS goes through an individual review by trained clerk staff at FDA.
It's a joint FDA /CDC agency, and so they have staff that review.
Every case that comes through.
And so when you see these numbers that are on the VAERS or that you extract from VAERS, every one of those cases has passed review by the CDC FDA committee.
So these are not just some arbitrary hand-waving fake reports.
These are all that have been scrutinized and believed to be correct by the people who are filing them.
Now, some of them are filed by the family members of the deceased.
Some are filed By people themselves with very severe reports.
Some were filed by doctors.
Some were filed by family attorneys.
Some were filed by pharmacists.
Anybody can file a report that has knowledge of the case.
And so we know that, if anything, these are very undercounted.
That the undercounting in VAERS is kind of in proportional to the severity and the time from when it happened.
If somebody keels over and dies the next day after vaccination, That death is almost certainly going to be reported to theirs.
Oh, Harvey, I knew someone.
I mean, I'm almost reluctant to share the story because these are anecdotal.
Family friend.
Elderly person.
Heart attack.
Nobody even knew the person had the vaccine the day before.
Passed away.
And it's at the funeral that someone mentions it.
It's like people are so embarrassed.
They don't even want to report it even if it's, you know, other than having an allergic reaction in the pharmacist's seat.
A day later, a week later, people are too embarrassed to even report it.
So I'm not even convinced that a day later it goes in there and it's a definitive case.
You might be right.
You might be right.
But at least there's a much higher likelihood of it getting reported when people see that there's a connection, a temporal connection between when the jab was and when the person was severely affected or died.
If somebody only has swelling of their leg.
You know, then that's much less likely to be reported than somebody who has a heart attack.
So you have to be a little bit judicious in your attributions.
But in general, it's an undercount, if anything.
There's no one has ever made a convincing statement that it's an overcount.
But Harvey, I'll play devil's advocate yet again.
They've only determined that there were six cases that were directly related to the vaccine.
The VAERS, whoever audits those claims.
They've only determined six.
Well, like I said, look at the conflicts of interest of the people doing the determining.
In general, in a medical legal sense, you know that it's very difficult to prove that a drug caused a death, say.
That it requires an autopsy.
It requires very aggressive testing.
It requires testing of the correlates, of the metabolic.
And physiologic correlates of what drugs do in order to establish that the drug caused the problem which led to the death.
That is such an invasive and detailed task that without that level of knowledge, it's easy just to shrug it off and say, "This wasn't causal." However, that doesn't fly in some circumstances.
For example, if you take some kind of event that's one in a million in the genopause, so if it happens two times a year in the United States...
And then in vaccinated people, it's happening two times a week, then that's evidence of causation, okay?
Because it just doesn't happen in real life.
And so there's a whole range of ways of reasoning that bear upon this.
And okay, so I'm willing to admit that some of those 30,000 people who died probably died of natural causes that were just coincidental at the times.
But I'm not willing to say that only six of them.
We're caused by the vaccines either.
Well, but how do you get around this pickle?
Pretty much everyone has gotten COVID.
Pretty much everyone has gotten the vaccine.
70-some odd percent of America.
How do you...
Okay, someone dies of a heart attack, a blood clot, whatever.
Well, that could be just as easily attributed to COVID as it could to the jab.
So as an epidemiologist, how do you go about...
How do you go about finding the...
How do you get an answer to that question?
Well, if they died two days after COVID, it's more likely COVID than the jab.
If they died two days after the jab, it's more likely the jab than previous COVID.
But now we've got long COVID, Harvey.
So long COVID is the magical catch-all to everything now.
It can happen nine months later after the booster.
It's still long COVID.
Long COVID is not generally fatal.
Long COVID is difficult.
At times, but it has not been shown to be anywhere near as fatal as the vaccines and the people who've died from the vaccines.
I don't think that that's a valid reason.
Look, why have there been no autopsies in all of the public figures who've died at early ages?
The SADs.
Where are all the autopsies of the SADs people?
You mentioned it.
I saw a portion of an interview of Apparently morticians or the embalmers are saying they're seeing things that they've never seen before, but it's going to go right back to the same issue.
Is it the virus or is it the jab since pretty much everybody's had both by now?
Well, most people, especially younger and healthy, non-obese people who've had COVID return to normal life, get on with it and have had no long-term consequences.
So I can't see that you could assert that it's COVID doing any of this.
And, you know, there are similarities between long COVID and post-vaccine damage that the commonality is the spike protein, that the things that spike protein can do, can do it in both cases.
So there is some overlap.
The treatment certainly is now beginning to be seen as a highly overlapping rationale for trying different kinds of treatments.
But that's what we're left with.
It's hard to completely distinguish, you know, a complete black or white, but so every case has its own merits.
And now I'm going to read, I don't want to keep you too long, but I think we can go on for a lot longer.
Let me get some questions on locals and some questions in the super chat.
Ms. Ninja says, I'm just wondering how they continue to push this when the stats are showing it's not only ineffective, but causing death and serious side effects.
Are you noticing anything more of a pushback in the medical community or are you still a lone wolf out there?
No, there's lots of doctors who are espousing not to be using this in a general way.
There may be instances where some patients evaluate it to their benefit to take it.
But by and large, there is no rationale now, neither now nor for the new booster update.
And the reason for that is that hospitalization and mortality is down below the level of the typical flu season.
The other thing is that I was quoted in the Epoch Times recently saying that the rationale for the new version, we'll call it a version if anything, of the vaccine is not likely to be effective by the time we hit a fall wave.
So assuming that we do get a wave for this fall /winter, which is by no means certain, but if we do, it's most likely not going to be the BA.5 variant that's...
Now, CDC has shown, I haven't looked at it today, but as of yesterday, or the day before, it was showing the BA.5 variant had peaked, plateaued at its peak, and is poised to come down.
Whereas the BA.4.6, the new variant, is now about 7-8% and is increasing, steadily increasing.
And by November, it's almost certain to be BA.4.6, that'll be the prevalent variant and not BA.5.
And this vaccine will not work against BA4.6 because BA4.6 is already pushing back against BA5, which the whole country already has immunity to either from vaccination or from having had BA5 or related COVID.
I'm not wrong in saying this, Harvey, that all of these subsequent variants are less lethal and generally more mild than the previous variants?
Yes, more or less.
When Omicron hit, that was the big ticket that cut the mortality by a factor of four.
Then the BA2 variant cut that about in half.
From there, BA4 and BA5.
BA4 cut it in half again.
BA5, probably about the same.
BA5 has gone a little bit retrograde in that it has a little bit of an ability to get into the lungs.
The previous ones were...
Very rarely got into the lungs, so they didn't cause pneumonia.
BA.5 can do that a little bit, but it doesn't seem to be serious in any way.
And BA.4.6, nobody knows anything about yet.
Well, this is then one of the questions from the locals community, which is from Mighty Pe, which says, please ask him to comment.
The new Omicron variant booster shots tested on eight mice approved.
Well, we got to that part.
But you heard the press secretary.
Are they suggesting that people are going to need this every eight weeks?
Well, draw your own conclusions.
I mean, if the thing only lasts for a month or six weeks before it goes to zero or increases your risk of getting infected, and their job is to curtail transmission, then you might as well just have your monthly shot.
It'll be like oral contraceptives.
You go in and get your monthly thing.
I'm also just wondering, what is the rationale to get a booster or a vaccine?
From the less lethal variant, which itself, as I think I'm not stating anything shocking here, natural infection has better long-lasting immunity compared to the vaccine.
Is that still true?
It's always been true.
It's at least as good, if not better.
I tend to think it's better.
I'm willing to hedge my bets and say it's at least as good.
And he's showing that at least that that's true.
It's known to the ancients.
Everybody knows that natural immunity works for many diseases.
And the only reason it doesn't work for flu is because the virus mutates so rapidly that it escapes from natural immunity every year.
And even so, it's not 100% escaped that people do have some degree of resistance to new strains of flu.
And the same is going to be true for COVID.
Well, Sidewalk wants to know what you're hopeful about.
Are you hopeful about anything, Harvey, or have you gone full blackpilled like too many people out there?
Oh, no.
I'm hopeful that the censorship that we've faced over the last two and a half years has not been hermetic, that information has leaked out, that if people aren't willing to watch alternative media to get information,
then at least they're starting to find out That if they're at least awake, that they've seen friends, family members, people they know have gotten adverse events from the vaccines.
And so they know that the vaccines are not foolproof.
They know people who have been vaccinated have come down with COVID.
They know people who have had COVID multiple times have been vaccinated.
People are seeing this and they're starting to ask the question, this is not consistent with all of the messages that we were told.
That if you got vaccinated, that was the end of it.
That was a presidential message.
That was the CDC.
That was Fauci.
It was Bourla who said 100% efficacy in South African studies back in, I forget what it was, 2020.
Then you had Fauci, 90% effective, greatly reduces transmission, and then the go-to smoke.
Right, right.
And then they gave up on transmission altogether.
So people are realizing this, that How much do you have to be hit over the head before you realize that what you're seeing is not what you're being told?
And that's causing people to start waking up.
Now, the ones who are still in major fear, they've been propagandized.
People who wear their masks in their cars while driving by themselves, you know they're quaking in fear, but everybody else at least has a hope.
I try to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe they're driving someone else's car who just had COVID.
Harvey, I'm going to read a couple of Rumble rants.
Fleet Lord Avatar.
A $50 rumble rant says, Dr. Hirsch, on behalf of everyone worldwide, sincerest appreciation and thank you for not keeping your head down and speaking facts.
Best wishes for you and your loved ones.
And I know other people agree with that.
Pamela Walker says, so I am somewhat immune compromised.
On methotoxate for shorgans, I'm unvaxxed.
If I get COVID...
Early hydroxychloroquine will help question mark.
No medical advice, but can you field any portion of that question ethically, Harvey?
I'd say the best thing to do is to find a physician with expertise in your Sjogren's syndrome and immunocompromise and work out the best plan forward for you.
Yes, it's possible that these medications could be used, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and others.
You need a doctor with expertise in using them.
One thing I'll say, I have to give a little bit of a commercial, is I'm involved in a healthcare entity that is going to be providing telemedicine, and it's not going to be circumscribed by rigid corporate policies that will be coming on, which plan to come online this week, and once it's out.
Available, then people can use it too as another telemedicine.
You'll give me the link and I'll pin it everywhere and send it around.
Not yet, but it will be made public in a few days.
And when you say that more people, Harvey, are getting wise, we are at 10,700 people watching live now on Rumble.
And that's Rumble after having come off YouTube entirely, which is amazing.
And people will snip, they will clip, they will share.
I just want to make sure I can get to as many of the questions I have.
This is from MartySmithFan.
He says, I have the same issue as Jimmy Dore, but I never got better.
Lost my job of 20 years after my second COVID shot.
Cervical and lower spine.
Chronic joint pain.
Glenn Schumann says, is quercetin effective as a substitute for HCQ?
Quercetin.
Do you know what that is, Harvey?
That's not French.
Damn it.
Yes and no.
It probably has some benefit as an ionophore for bringing zinc into cells.
If that's all you can get, then that's what you should use.
I can't really speak to its actual efficacy in treating COVID.
These are all over-the-counter things, vitamins and related supplements that people use.
It's worth trying.
It's better going to a telemedicine doctor who's willing to prescribe the best course that he or she thinks is appropriate for you.
I think that COVID is still a serious enough illness, even in the Omicron era, that one should be followed by a physician just to tidy up the ends and keep supervision to make sure that it doesn't go south.
It's not really risky for that to happen, but still having supervision is always a little safer.
Excellent.
Now, Harvey, did we get to everything we wanted to talk about tonight?
Is there anything that you wanted to mention?
I'm trying to think of the notes.
We had the Israeli video leaks, which I tweeted after you sent it to me.
Pushing the booster, tested on mice, and not all that many of them, not on humans yet.
By the sounds of it, from Press Secretary Jean-Pierre, the updated vaccine, if you haven't had your shot in eight weeks and you're, what did she say, 12 and up?
Yes.
Harvey, what are the statistics, the known statistics?
The known statistics on myocarditis in young men.
Dr. Kieran Moore out of Ontario admitted, at the same time as saying that this is not a vaccine, it's a therapeutic, admitted that it's 1 in 5,000.
I was advised, found that there was a German study or German health authorities that confirmed it's 1 in 5,000 per dose.
Do you have any clarification on that?
Well, there's a lot of discussion of this.
If we're talking about symptomatic myocarditis, pericarditis, my estimate is about 1 in 4,000 per dose.
So that cuts it into around 1 in 2,000, 1 in 1,000, depending on doses, in males aged 15 to 35, say, or 40. However, I would say that...
For every symptomatic case, there's probably four asymptomatic cases that people who have measurable myocarditis by doing high sensitivity troponin blood levels, you can figure out that somebody actually has some degree of myocardial inflammation.
And that's worrisome enough, as we said, we're calling it mild myocarditis.
There isn't really such a thing, but that puts it into the range.
Much larger numbers.
Now, one of my colleagues has reported in a private school whose children, his children, I believe, go to, that one in 400 of the students got myocarditis when the vaccines were rolled out of the male students at high school.
So there's your ballpark, between one in 400 and one in 4,000 is the range of possibilities.
What it's affecting.
And now, just to play the devil's advocate again, does COVID itself, infections in children, young men, does it cause potentially myocarditis as well?
It can.
It's certainly less than that.
These cases were not diagnosed in COVID patients.
They were diagnosed in vaccinated people.
It came to attention in vaccinated people, not in COVID patients.
And what was the study?
Was it out of Singapore or the Philippines of the school children that were given the vaccine and then they had to fact check it to say it wasn't one third of them that got myocarditis.
It was only one in 300.
I think that might have been one of the studies.
I covered it a while back.
Another question, which was?
It was Thailand, but one in 300 is bad enough.
I don't know.
That's...
It's unjustifiable.
And that they continue to push this in 12 and up.
I don't know how else to describe it other than, in my view, my opinion, criminal.
Well, let me ask you this question.
If you were a bridge engineer, you designed a bridge, and one in 300 cars fell into the river every time they drove over it.
Would that bridge still be there?
Would you be arrested?
I mean, what's your standard for safety?
You'd be arrested.
You would be arrested.
It would be criminal negligence, and you would be arrested.
And now it's...
The experts told us to do it, and so we wash our hands of it.
The experts...
That's right.
Now, one of the other...
I don't know if it's a rumor.
I don't know if it's a true thing.
I don't know if you know the answer.
They say that...
If you've been diagnosed with myocarditis, your chances of dying within 10 years are 50%.
Is that an urban legend, or is there any element of truth to that?
I think it's high.
I don't know if it's that high.
I think that it does lead to eventual cardiac issues that can shorten lifespan.
So any diagnosis of myocarditis can be that way, and I think you should put that question to Peter McCullough, who's a cardiologist, who could give you a much more defined answer.
Look, now that we're doing the exclusives on Rumble, we're going to get McCullough, we're going to get Dr. Corey, I'm going to get any other doctor who is pushing this.
To come and explain.
And, you know, we'll leave it to the scrutinizing eyes of the interwebs for them to get all the information and then come to their own conclusions.
Now I'm going to go back to Dr. Rish.
Anything we forgot and how do you want to end this so that people, first of all, they love what you're doing as everybody should because you were the nail that was sticking up for the last two years.
You've gotten the hammer.
Not much.
To be honest, you know, I'm really happy that Yale has maintained a reasonable semblance of freedom of academic speech, that I'm fine with my colleagues saying silly things and things that they've written about me.
I'm fine with the federal government kangaroo committees writing things that my colleagues have, you know.
Written that what I say is not valid and so on, and not ever citing any scientific evidence.
All of that is part of give and take of discussions.
And I'm fine with that because I'm willing to go head to head with anybody on a science basis.
Not somebody who scoffs, who says there is no science, who says randomized trials are the only evidence.
Those are belief systems that there is no discussion.
But I'm fine with going against any credible scientific person.
Talking about the science.
That's what we should be doing.
And so I give my colleagues every opportunity to do that, just like I've had the opportunity to do that.
You read the literature.
Don't take what I say for granted.
Don't believe me.
I'm the high priest of hydroxychloroquine.
Don't believe me.
Go and read the studies.
Read what I wrote about the studies.
Go read the studies.
Make up your own minds.
Think about whether the data are good or bad, and what the studies show, and whether you believe them or not, and draw your own conclusions.
Unfortunately, Medical writing today is a wild west, that you can't believe things published in the New England Journal or the Lancet or other journals because it's all highly biased by the funding of those journals by pharma.
And so it's corrupted.
And studies that are contra the current messaging don't get published.
They don't even get reviewed.
They get bounced by the editors of the journal.
The study from the...
Henry Ford Healthcare System showing 50% reduced risk of serious outcome events from giving hydroxychloroquine the first 24-48 hours of COVID patients from two years ago, or whenever it was, was bounced out of the New England Journal of Medicine.
It was not even sent out for review.
Well, why?
Because Lindsay Baden and Janet Woodcock are the editors.
Of the New England Journal of Medicine, Lindsay Baden was on the head of the review committee for the Moderna vaccine, and Janet Woodcock was in the FDA with her hatred of hydroxychloroquine and wouldn't let anything come to approval in the FDA.
Talk about conflicts of interest in these journals, okay?
So you cannot accept that the journals are providing representative science.
Even the preprint servers like MedArchive and the other...
Preprint servers still have some tangents of bias.
I've submitted very, very simple analytic data analysis papers to MedArchive and gotten them thrown out, and they're not even reviewed.
But by and large, you have to look at all the evidence and try to review it to the best of your ability yourself.
That's what I have to do.
I don't believe anything in papers.
I've taught epidemiology for 40 years.
I teach my students, when you read the scientific literature, Don't believe the conclusions of the authors.
Read the paper.
Read what the data show.
Look for faults and flaws in the study.
And have a suspicious mind.
And if you read it and you can't find flaws and faults, enough that make the study bad, then you can begin to believe the data.
Then look at the analyses and draw your own conclusions from the analyses.
And draw the conclusions that you would draw from the study.
If those are the ones drawn by the authors, well, fine.
But they might not be the same.
Lots of times they're not the same.
Reporters read the conclusions of the authors.
They cut and paste, and that's what gets into the media.
But that's not science.
That's not even understanding the science.
You have to draw your own conclusions from all these papers.
It takes work.
It's a lot of work.
Even for me, it's a lot of work.
And then you have The Lancet.
Publishing, I forget which study in particular it was, but then stealth withdrawing the study as though it never happened because it was bunk to begin with and they didn't do the slightest bit of verification.
Your papers, that's right, Lancet and New England Journal both published fake papers and there's been more also.
There's whole websites about revoked papers.
Some of them are revoked for political reasons because of contrary message, but many of them are revoked because of real flaws.
That tried to slip through.
And then The Lancet, once upon a time, said, you know, the idea that it came from a mutated virus.
What was it called?
Gain-of-function research in Wuhan.
It was wrong.
Conspiracy theory harming their ability to actually treat this in the early days.
And then a year and a half later, they say it's a perfectly plausible theory that they've always supported it.
It's more than plausible.
There's a lot of strong scientific evidence, but this is time for another conversation.
Let's not talk about it all tonight, Harvey.
Thank you very much.
Thank you immensely for everything you're doing.
Please come back so we can talk about more stuff later on as things develop.
When the link is out, you'll give it to me.
It'll be pinned comment.
I'll share it around so that people can know where to go.
Where they can find me.
I don't have much in the way of social media, but I do have a Telegram channel.
And if you want to find the easiest way, it's to Google Risch, R-I-S-C-H, and Yale, Y-A-L-E, and you'll find my webpage at Yale, and at the bottom of the paragraph there, it has my Telegram site.
Well, Harvey, send me the link, and I'll blast it around all of my social.
Put it as the pinned comment here.
Share it with our locals community, and people will flood in.
Happy to.
All right, awesome.
Stick around.
We'll say our proper goodbyes.
Everyone in the chat, thank you.
This has been amazing.
I think Salty Cracker is live, guys, so you know where to go from here.
Harvey.
If you want to have a good laugh, I'll send you the link to Salty Cracker on Rumble after this.