The Truth with Lisa Boothe: Dr. Harvey Risch on the Largest COVID Vax Study Ever

on the podcast before. He was fearlessly on all over the news networks trying to bring us the truth about everything during COVID, including vaccines.

done the study. That having been said, I felt the way that the results were reported, because the analysis was an average over all age groups and so on for some of the outcomes that are much more important in defined age groups. For example, the myocdis outcome, which they reported to have a relative risk of something like sixfold after the second dose, and that's a significant symptom, but

that's averaged across all age groups. We know that the risk of milcarditis is much higher in fifteen to thirty year old males and fifteen to thirty year old females for that matter, So what was the increased risk the relative risk in that age group that when you average it out over the whole population comes to sixfold. It might have been twentyfold in that age group, and they

hid that by not providing that specifically. The second thing is that they did this analysis without providing any more granularity. This is an extension of what I just said, by age, by by sex, and so on, of these various factors, and then they concluded that. Oh and the other thing is that they only provided relative risks, not absolute risks.

So what we really want to know is not that myocarditis has a six or twentyfold increased relative risk, but we want to know in vaccinated males aged fifteen to thirty, we want to know how many per thousand actually got myocarditis.

Was it one hundred per thousand, was it ten per thousand, was it one per thousand, Even if that was increased by five or ten or twenty fold, what matters is the absolute risk, because if you're going to make a decision to go and get these vaccines, you need to know what the risk is for you, not whether it's elevated, but what the risk is for you. So if the risk is one percent, that's something really to consider carefully.

If the risk is one in a thousand, well maybe it's not so bad, you understand so, and they hid that also.

Or with the vaccine, Okay, maybe if you're elderly you might want to think about getting the vaccine, but if you're younger and healthy, you know, like they haven't really delineated this entire time between the specific risk profile of each group and even you know, with you describing sort of how the study was done, of not breaking down those groups when that really matters greatly in terms of you know, your risk from the vaccine or even back in the day in the beginning of this, like your

risk from COVID.

and so on. And then after some six to twelve months and it was became apparent that the vaccines were leaky, that people were getting COVID even after vaccination, that the messaging changed to be, oh, it'll keep you from getting hospitalized or dying from COVID, had nothing to do with transmission, which was the real issue, and so all of this got manipulated to suit the benefit of someone some entity

against the public health interests of the general population. And one ask address who was pushing this narrative that if the idea is that for many of the vaccine mandates, the rationale was you'll reduce risk of transmitting the infection to others if you get vaccinated. Well, if you've already had COVID, you reduce the risk of transmitting the virus to others to the same or greater degree than if

you had been vaccinated. But people who had had COVID were not exempted from getting vaccinated, and the pushback, the messaging pushback on that was, well, you'll have even more immunity if you get vaccinated, even after you've had COVID, which was irrelevant, illogical, because the whole point was you set a standard by the mandate for how much reduced risk you might convey by getting vaccinated, and you meet that standard by an alternative form by having already had COVID.

Not everybody has to map the standard wasn't everybody has to maximize their immunity. The standard was the threshold that vaccines were supposed to provide. And so this irrationality, this lack of logic, was made everybody should have made everybody sit up and say, wait a minute, this is a fraud. If if my having had COVID providing me as much immunity as the vaccines don't qualify for satisfying the vaccine mandate, then there's something else going on, and this is a fraud.

There's no question that it was bio engineered. That all of the scientific evidence, all of the spy intelligence evidence, everything points to it leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology that it was made under bioengineering engineering techniques that were developed by Ralph Barrack at the University of North Carolina and taught to Chinese researchers who took it to the wib In Muhana and developed it there and it

leaked from there. Now you have to realize that the development of a bioengineered gain of function virus is essentially a bioweapon. That gain of function research that makes what are animal in natural viruses that exist in wildlife that might spill over into humans. In general, those viruses are not very severe in humans because they're not adapted to humans. They haven't been propagated in humans for thousands of virus

generations to become adept at infecting humans. There are adept at infecting animals, and animals have different cell receptors, different molecules and so on, different immune receptors and all this that makes each animal species basically unique as a lock and key system for a virus and its species and

its animal species. So this virus was perfectly adapted to humans when it was first released, which means that it was engineered for that, which means that the development of this, the research of this qualifies it to be a bioweapon because of the nature of illness and death that it

caused in the population when it first was released. And we have a Bioweapons Treaty that President Ford signed in nineteen seventy five that said we are prohibited in the whole every country that signed this is prohibited from developing offensive bioweapons. It's against the law against that treaty. And the only loophole in that is that small quantities of bioweapons could be developed for the purposes of making vaccines. So that means that translate to twenty nineteen, this virus

is released, and it has to be justified. All this work has to be justified because the end result was the idea of making a vaccine against it, and nobody was prepared to make that vaccine because it took a year for the vaccine to actually to be made and rolled out. And that means, and this parallels the fact that there's been this gain of function bioweapons research going on all over the world even after the Bioweapons Treaty, all of it claiming to be what's called dual use research,

that it's for the purpose of making vaccines. Yet there's never been any commercial vaccines for any of these bioweapon viruses. Sure, we have vaccine research for other pathogens that we know about that exists, but that are developed as bioweapons. These are gain of function viruses that the only rationale that were allowed to have for their development is that we're

making a vaccine. So the vaccine had to come out to supply the rationale, the evidence that this virus development, this bioweapons virus development, was for the purpose of making a vaccine. If there was no vaccine, then this would have been offensive bioweapon development would have been illegal against the treaty and the population. The general population would rightfully have called for a complete end to all bioweapons research because it has no benefit for It has no military

benefit for US, has no defense benefit for US. It has only risk because the only benefit would be vaccines. But if there's no vaccine, then there's no benefit at all. The vaccine was a charade to justify this offensive bioweapons research that's been going on for decades and decades. The biometry industry was required to put this out in order to justify itself, to keep the general population from being outraged and shutting this industry down.

or something like that. That's pretty significant, right, Like polio has been around for forever.

That is their own medical choice. We think that prudent people would do that, but it's their fundamental freedom of choice to do that.

zero one or two of getting this vaccine. Now, I don't know what you think the background rate of people should have been dug, but it's in the maybe tens

or twenties, not twelve thousand. So we know there's a major signal there that the number of deaths in the various reported is some of my thirty seven thousand now, but going out to longer time stretch after vaccination, and we've seen all this other data on excess mortality excess disability that started in twenty twenty one in national US and UK surveys that we know that these vaccines are

not safe. That it's so what matters is the risk benefit quantitative relationship, and that was never provided to the population ever, So that means nobody was even able to get informed consent if they had even been told, which they hadn't been, but if they had been told that there's some risk of serious adverse events like mile chroditis and other things, they were never told how big that risk is. It was always gas lit. Oh, it's negligible,

it's minor. The problem is that if you're going to vaccinate three hundred million people in the US, then something that's even one in ten thousand becomes in the thousands of people affected or tens of thousands of people affected, and that that becomes serious that you know, we can't have fifty thousand or one hundred thousand or more people severely injured, neurological diseases, clotting diseases, cancer, and other things from a vaccine, of which the virus infection that they

would have gotten if the vaccine actually worked, the virus infactor were gotten, would not have anywhere near the magnitude of risk that what they experienced from the vaccine. It's a matter of risk benefit. So in the age groups that had essentially zero risk of mortality from this, which

is children, young adults. There should never have been any vaccination, let alone mandated vaccination, because those people, at least the healthy ones want people who don't have chronic conditions, have had essentially statistically zero risk of dying from this virus. So there was no cause. There's no risk benefit benefit for them, only risk, and that's not appropriate.

you know, some of these adverse reactions. They also found that the viral vector vaccines were linked to higher blood clods as well as increased likelihood of Gillian Barr syndrome, neurological or you know, And so I guess our mRNA vaccines more inherently dangerous than the viral vector vaccines or

were it's just these vaccines in general. I guess like that was something I found that was a little bit interesting because I've always kind of had this, I guess, negative viewpoint on the m RNA vaccine just because it's so new. But we've done viral vector of vaccines for you know, a long time, right, So I don't know, did that surprise you or what do you kind of like, what do you what do you derive from that.

all sorts of things like that that are symptomatic of something altered in their reproductive regulation. But we don't know about whether that matters for fertility or not. There have been there, I believe there is some evidence to suggest that birth rates have declined and you know, after the lockdown. I joke that I would have expected birth rates to start increasing nine months after the lockdowns, but I don't think much has been seen, and if anything, it's been

decreased numbers of births. But this is going to require some much more serious study. And one of the main problems about the whole pandemic from the beginning is that the organizations that are tasked are public health organizations that are tasked with studying treatment, adverice effects, everything about it, have decidedly chosen not to look at things that might

show damage or harm. They basically make claims of safety without demonstrating data to prove the safety and the I think, and they don't do the studies that could show harm. And that's been the problem, whether that was early, you know, outpatient treatment of repurposed drugs or these reproductive harms. The CDC has data on it has clinical chart information on some two hundred and twenty five I think million Americans. It has not made any of those data transparent. It

has data on three hundred million Americans insurance claims. So this is the treatment data that gets filtered into the insurance payment system and Medicare and Medicaid, and it's not made any of that public. It's not analyzed any of that and made that public. So we know that these agencies have the data to do these studies and they're not revealing what they know.

the gold standard of evidence. Over time, that statement got perverted to being randomized control trials are the only acceptable

form of evidence. And what that means is that because the cost of a randomized control trial is somewhere between five and one hundred million dollars, that only where there's a profit motive for testing something, where there's basically a patent product that will make money large amounts of money more than the five or hundred men million dollars in the trial, that that is the only kind of product that will ever get into the marketplace because of this

corrupted system. Now, I've written a long essay at the Radstone Institute and readers can look there for it listeners that talks about this fraud that randomized control trials are not the gold standard evidence because they're not done in a way that would make them that, because they need

to have large numbers of outcome events. So, for example, in the original Pfizer vaccine trial, while there were twenty two thousand people who got the vaccine, in twenty two thousand controls who didn't, the number of infections in the vaccine group was eight. Eight is not a randomized number. You know, if you flip a coin ten times, you could get seven heads and three tails or vice versa very easily happens a third of the time, and so that means that the randomization didn't work in that study.

That eight is just not randomized, and so biases that the trial is supposed to remove by being randomized were not removed because the numbers of the outcomes weren't big enough.

And this happens all over these randomized trials. And at the same time, the quality of non randomized but control trials has improved from nineteen ninety one, when the evidence based medicine people claimed that observational studies non randomized trials were biased, until today when investigators like myself and others we know huge amounts about all of the diseases that we study, and we know what the risk factors are, and we measure them in the studies and we adjust

for them, and so we clean up all that potential bias and make our observational non randomized studies very high quality. Then this has been shown empirically to that non randomized but controlled studies are evidentially just as good as randomized trials today, but the the medical industry has convinced the

FDA that only randomized trials count. And what this does is it lucks in the ability to sell prescription medications only for things that our patent, that there's a patent interest, and therefore the ability to get large amounts of money by charging hundreds of thousands of dollars per pill or

whatever to sell this stuff in the open market. And this is why repurposed drugs will never get approved for anything that have large marketplaces because they don't make enough money and they haven't got the force of randomized trials to apply to the corrected regulatory system.

you know, tons and tons of money off of. But then also to the extent that government controls studies as well, in stifles like independent studies and like through grant money.

should never have been allowed. We don't allow people to pay for government interests to corrupt the government because of their interests, So this should have been illegal from the start, and it's still happening today. Also, pharma has a financial interest in making people halfway better from their treatments. Okay, if you make somebody halfway better, it looks like your treatment does something, so it has a place in the marketplace.

On the other hand, if you cure somebody of something, then you can't keep selling them the medication, so you make them halfway better, and that means number one, they stay on your medication for forever. Number two, that the side effects of your medication generate more money for pharma to treat that. And so there's an interest in generating medications that are imperfect and that have their own adverse effects rather than things that are curative from the beginning.

you had mentioned it earlier. With COVID being a bioweapon, does that mean the intention of the bioweapon was to kill as it did kill a lot of elderly people and people with comorbidities, or are there like consequences that we're unaware of that we'll be dealing with from having gotten COVID in the future, because obviously if it was manipulated, then you know, I would think that, you know, there would be question, you know, like, so what does that do to our bodies in the long term?

they're thinking goes. And I think they are just totally it's totally irrelevant to them that any of these things that have got out and damaged tens or hundreds of millions of people would be well, that's life, you know that. I think they just don't care. They live in a theoretical, intellectual world with no common sense. And that's been a big problem that we've observed in more general society in the last few decades, but in particular, these virus researchers

making these gain of function viruses. They are basically thinking, Wow, could we do this? How interesting would this be to do this? This is this is a scientific challenge, and we can solve this problem. Actually do it. Wow, wouldn't that be interesting? And that's as far as the thinking goes.

positive to their health and longevity. I guess you know what kind of changes could we make? Should we make?

FDA and the CDC. We have to change the people who are in charge of the FDA and CDC the top scientific echelon to people who are not going to go and become heads or on advisory panels of drug companies the minute they leave those government regulatory agencies. Basically, we have to reduce the regulatory corruption from pharma into those agencies and make the agencies back to just doing their regulatory jobs based on explicit standards that they have

to use. Those are the major things that have to be done in order to decouple the regul natory agencies from pharma itself. Now we have to interfere with the process whereby regulatory agency scientists, the people who do the scientific work in FDA and CDC, then the regulatory work and so on, don't see that their only career improvement is to go to work in pharma, because then they're not going to make any adverse judgments against pharma products because they won't get a job in pharma, so that

has to be removed. And I think that the last thing is that even though we have monopoly laws on the books and pharma, there are enough pharma companies so

that not a single one has a monopoly. They are so large in the amount of money and resources that they have under their control that they've become de facto monopolies that they can control large volumes of medical advertising, paying for advertising in medical journals and so on, medical journal editors and reviews and all of that that corrupts the medical journals that they pay for grants and speakers

and docs. They've correct that corrupted almost all of academic medicine by paying for doctors to give you know, basically money to shut them up to anything except the pharma messaging.

And you have to realize that when you develop a successful medication, it costs a billion dollars to develop a successful medication, because ninety nine out of one hundred fail and you have to go through all one hundred to get the one that works, and so a billion dollars for the scientific work, and then there's two billion dollars you have to spend to corrupt the marketplace by paying off doctors and academic doctors all over the world, and grants,

speaking fees, teaching fees, all this stuff to make doctors aligned with your messaging. That has to end, That has to largely end. And it's all of this gigantic corrupting influence that is the facto monopoly that that is what has to be changed in order to make the whole regulatory and marketplace system more objective.

to collect information about cancer cases as they occur. It takes two to three years to get all of these data harmonized and cleaned up and available, and it's online on the NCI websites that you can probe these cancer rates by cancer type, by age group, by year, by metropolitan area, by race, sex, and so on and look at the rates. And so we don't have it yet from twenty twenty one and twenty twenty two. It's just it's going to be a while before it comes online.

The second thing is that cancer takes some years to develop. What you see at the very beginning if there's an increased risk of cancer, are the blood cancers, leukemia's lymphomas, You see those after two to three years because they're shorter latency. Lung cancer is five years. Solid cancers are

ten to twenty to thirty years. It takes. You'll also see cancers that have gone into remission that come out of remission, so for example, breast cancer that has been in a remission for five or ten years and then after a vaccination suddenly comes out of remission. So we've seen anecdotal reports of some of these things, but we don't have a quantitative estimate yet on these. The generation of new cancers based on the vaccine exposures.