Dr. Harvey Risch: Healthy Children Should Not Be Vaccinated Against COVID-19 | CLIP

So I mean, basically, you're saying that, at this point, because as we mentioned, these viruses changed considerably from from the beginning with these vaccines were designed. Basically, it becomes a plausibility argument for the use of the vaccines right now. Is that what you're saying? Well, at the basic level, people think vaccines save lives, we'll use them. Period. Vaccines are good. You know, and I think for a lot of the childhood vaccines, that is, on average, the prevailing viewpoint. And so people accept this is just another vaccine, therefore, it must be good. Now, people forget that there were numbers of vaccines that were pulled off the market. The dengue fever vaccine was pulled off the market, the SARS-CoV-1 vaccine never made it anywhere. The MERS vaccine, I think also, these were self limited pandemic, so to speak, that did not require vaccination. And there's been the vaccinologist know this better than I do, there's a numbers of vaccines that were pulled off the market because of adverse events that they caused, and not providing enough benefit. So it's not an all or nothing idea that vaccines are uniformly good. They have benefits and hazards like most things, especially in medicine. And one has to evaluate that trade off. That's what doctors are supposed to be for, is evaluating trade offs for their patients and helping the patients understand and with informed understanding as to how to figure out what the risks are, and how they can best manage them. So what's the bottom line with at the moment with the state of the data, you know, the sort of the state of the art data that that's out there, when it comes to the risks for children and the vaccination of children to protect them? In my opinion, healthy children and adolescents should not be vaccinated. There's children and adolescents who have serious chronic conditions like obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, immune compromise, chronic kidney disease, cancer, that's a different question. They require a personal evaluation to see what their hazards are. We know from the study of the Italian data from studies elsewhere that young children have, five to 12 years old, have about a one in a million chance of dying from COVID, unvaccinated, have a one in a million chance of dying from COVID. So the vaccines we have seen have much greater risks of serious adverse events and death, even if they're rare, it's infrequent, but it's not zero. And so the question is, which of these rare events would you choose to have a rare event from the vaccine, that's maybe 10 or 50 fold larger than a rare event from getting COVID. And so even though both are uncommon, one is much larger than the other. So me as a public health person, I say you choose the one with a lower risk of the same or similar outcome, even though both are infrequent. So even though most children could probably be vaccinated without that much harm, still, they're going to be some and if it's your family, and it's your child, you know, it's 100%, not zero, not one in a million. And so those people have to pay attention to that and make rational calculations based on the fact that dying from COVID or having a very serious outcome from COVID in very young children is essentially less likely than being struck by lightning, by being, you know, injured or killed in an automobile, automobile accident or something like that. Those are risks we kind of take for granted in society, put out of our mind because they're so infrequent. The same would be true for COVID. It's in that range of things. We live in an era of censorship and disinformation. And it can be really hard to know what's true and what's false in this information climate. To get honest information and insights you can trust. Join us on Epoch TV. You can sign up for your 14 day free trial at ept.ms slash free trial. That's ept.ms slash free trial JAN. Given all the information you just gave me, and also, you know, especially this element that we've been using antibody production as kind of, I guess, a proxy for efficacy of the vaccine in the first place. How is this that these things got approved? Well, these various government scientific agencies like FDA, CDC, and so on, have very highly trained scientific people doing the work. However, they are in a very narrow employment field. And that means that if they want to move up in their employment pyramids, that most of them won't eventually be able to do that to become department chairs and heads and things like that. They have to go outside the government institutions, and the only place for that is pharma. And so if they make decisions that are against their pharma, you know, the companies that they regulate, then they have no opportunity to move up, you know, by and large in their employment. And so there are people are reticent to do that. Sometimes it's how it happens. But by and large, there's there's a psychological force on people to be compliant in these agencies. The second thing that we've observed is that Dr. Fauci has put in the approval panels of these agencies, many people who have conflicts of interest with pharma. No university, no IRB would allow an advisory committee to make decisions with all that conflict of interest. But apparently in NIH, there's no pushback from that, because the ethics department is apparently run by Dr. Fauci's wife. And so what we've seen is capture of all these regulatory approval, you know, panels in the EPA is another one where of cases, particularly in the part where this has happened, that there is a lot of regulatory capture in all these scientific agencies. And it's a problem that it's going to be difficult to solve, because the people who are actually doing the work, you know, are very well trained and highly efficient and expert at doing their jobs, and just don't see that they're doing anything untoward, compared to the actual evidence that's out there. What that really means is that they are selectively looking at evidence without doing a representative sampling of all the evidence that they should be paying attention to. And that's how they can come up with decisions, with evidence favoring one side or the other by ignoring evidence that they don't want to consider by calling it weak evidence or poor quality evidence, that using subjective methods and evaluating evidence, you can get rid of the stuff that's inconvenient. It's interesting, you mentioned the EPA. Of course, there's this recent Supreme Court decision. I'm guessing this is what you're getting at. So tell me about what you're seeing here. Well, I think that what we've seen is the growth of the administrative state that I believe was established by Woodrow Wilson, and his known elitism against the general population. And it grew with FDR, to the point where the massive administrative state of the United States now is a virtual additional arm of government. Now, I believe if you read the Federalist Papers, you'll see that it was philosophically established that Congress is the only one who has the power to make laws, but Congress can't delegate making laws to administrative people, that basically the administrative state was set up to do work to bring to Congress so that Congress could make the laws. But what happened is, they started making the policies and the laws in Congress abdicated that responsibility, even though it was illegal to do that. And that's what the Supreme Court finally pushed back on, that it said the EPA can't be making such a wide policy, a policy that has national implications. EPA can make minor policies that are in the realm of what administrative bodies should be doing, but not ones that are tantamount to congressional law. Our mutual friend Jeffrey Tucker argues that this decision, Gorsuch's opinion, has broad ramifications well beyond the EPA and to other agencies. What are your thoughts? Not being an attorney, I can't really tell because a lot of these things play out on the details of the case. But the general principle seems right, and seems that our administrative state has had a massive overreach in terms of making policies that are tantamount to law between CDC, FDA, and so on, with their policies about recommendations for drug use or drug not use and so on, which become de facto policies and laws across an entire medical establishment. I think that I'm hoping that the court will take this up and look at these and see whether these agencies are really entitled to be making what are tantamount to laws that the Congress should be making.