Paused at 0:00.
Hello, welcome to Politics and Science. I'm your host John Barkhausen. This week I return to interview Dr. Raymond P. PhD. He's a physiologist and a science historian from Eugene, Oregon. I've interviewed him many times and we did three shows at the beginning of this year about the coronavirus "pandemic" and this is a follow-up show recorded on August 8th, 2020, looking at the latest data and talking about the phenomena of the panic around the coronavirus, how best we might understand it
in the context of the history of infectious diseases and how we've combated them in the past. This show will be posted at Radio Numeral4All, so the word radio, then the number 4, and then a-l-l-all.net/politics-and-science, all spelled out as one word. If you go to Radio Numeral4All and type in the search "politics-and-science" you'll find the show. Thanks for listening and here's the interview. Raymond P. thanks again for joining me on politics-and-science. I'm really honored that you're here and always informative to talk to you.
I've been concerned about the course of the coronavirus in our response to it. You'd think it would have wound up a few months ago when the death rate started going down. But we seem hell bent on locking down in order to save lives, even though they're ignoring all the cost to lives from economic stagnation and depression and suicides and all the other horrible stuff that happens when economies and societies go into isolation and depression. So I thought it would be useful today to try to analyze with your help some of the data that's driving,
supposedly driving our public policy. It does seem like there's a disconnect between the actual data and our reaction to it. Well, I don't actually think any of the data would justify doing what we're doing, something that's never been done before in history. But just looking at the overall picture of what's going on, what's your broad view take on it? Several months ago, when I started looking at the supposed pandemic, I was saying I don't see that anything is happening that doesn't normally happen. Can you hear me?
I had asked you if looking at the whole problem of the coronavirus and analyzing the data, what your broad view take was. Right at the start, when they were talking about a pandemic, I was thinking in terms of the history of the CDC on the influenza mortality question. And they had begun admitting, I think, a year or two ago, that their claims that influenza was causing 50 or 60,000 deaths every year, that they were correcting that and saying, well, we mean influenza or pneumonia of unspecified cause causing these tens of thousands of deaths.
And actually, we only tested and confirmed a few hundred or a few thousand to have been caused by influenza. And when they check, typically, there's a large block of the pneumonia deaths without any pathogen identified, simply stress and aging or sepsis can cause pneumonia deaths. And pneumonia and coronaviruses, going back years, each contributed a fairly small fraction, like a seventh or sixth of the total deaths from pneumonia.
And so I was very skeptical and started looking at the overall mortality. They had tables going back years showing the weekly total deaths as well as influenza and pneumonia deaths. And the immediate thing that popped out was that starting early in 2020, the weekly total mortality had dropped very noticeably a few percent. And later, I noticed a couple of other people had observed this historic phenomenon of all the deaths in the United States dropping off suddenly beginning in January of 2020.
Joe Houghft, a right-wing political blogger, and Denny Rancourt, who had a very interesting interview on Delta Big Tree's program, a highway, I think it's called, these people both saw the same strange phenomena that I saw. And I was immediately saying, as far as I can see, nothing is happening this year, except a strange decrease in all caused mortality, all caused mortality, including accidents, voltage, infant mortality, all kinds of cancer and heart disease and so on. That was the only really interesting health phenomenon I can see.
And I kept checking over the weeks, and every time I checked, I couldn't see any evidence whatsoever of increased mortality caused by COVID. And I began noticing that instructions had gone out to change the way death certificates were written to put down COVID if they didn't know exactly what caused the death. And just the instructions, they were changing the way of diagnosing cause of death instead of autopsies or some actual observed connection between a virus test and the death. They were, by default, putting a lot of deaths down as caused by COVID.
And that works. One of the ICDC officials commented on that they had changed the way of diagnosing deaths, and it had the possibility of biasing. And she no longer started appearing. She was on every press conference, but they are, so after she made that in politics remark, she no longer was appearing publicly. I believe she said that she wouldn't necessarily believe the statistics coming out of the CDC.
And so that ran court on the interview with Dale Bigtree showed a graph he had compiled from the figures he got from the CDC, and that showed graphically what I had been noticing, just writing down in columns what I copied off their website. If you look at the normal mortality curve from influenza or pneumonia or whatever, you get a fairly smooth, sharp peak arise to an axiom and then fall at this peak in April. It started the normal rise, and then suddenly it crashed and it looked like a volcano that had caved in on itself.
And for several weeks, it had that bizarre shape, and then all of the deaths that had mysteriously disappeared popped back in the so-called COVID spike or peak. And it created a unique, historically unprecedented kind of a spike, an extremely sharp rise starting April 4th, peaking just about a week, week and a half later, and then crashing just as fast. And then he ran court said this is something a prosecutor could and should use in court to show human intervention because statistically things have ever happened like that, and it just isn't an actual phenomenon.
It's a human created thing. And that probably activated some defensive reactions in the CDC because something I had been noticing going back as far as I checked. The recent published figures would show this present week at maybe three days into the present week. It would indicate that this week only say 20% of the reports had been received, and the number of reported deaths would be correspondingly low, like 20,000 for the week.
And the preceding week would indicate that maybe 80% of the reports had been received, and the numbers would be suitable, like maybe 45,000 deaths for that week. But I never saw less than 100% report for any week, farther back than three weeks, by three weeks passed consistently that they had had a complete reporting, stable numbers. I think it was in April, they started going back, changing those numbers, and the latest report you sent me a copy of it. I compared it with the figures I had written down, starting at the end of 2019.
So I had numbers to compare. They go back at CDC currently. They had numbers back to February 1st, which I compared. And they have retroactively changed the numbers 25 weeks in the history. Previously, they had always had satisfactory reports within two or three weeks. Now they say they were massively underreporting 25 weeks ago, and they were adding back at one or two or even 5% addition.
That sort of changing of the record and failing to account for how the whole country could have been in a coordinated way, failing to report their statistics, just so that those missing numbers could suddenly be shifted to create that peak. Right. I think the last show we did, which was perhaps at the beginning of April, at that time, I noticed on the CDC website that the flu deaths had suddenly dropped remarkably, and they all seem to have been shifted over to the corona category.
That one week, there was this sharp stop in the flu deaths corresponding to the spike in corona deaths. Another obvious manipulation, going with what Denver Berks said that the method of diagnosis made all the difference. Yeah. So that's an odd thing that they would suddenly change the criteria for cause of death for just for this pandemic. I wonder when the last time they've changed the criteria for doctors reporting cause of death was any idea. No, no idea.
Yeah, I think it's fairly unprecedented for them to do that. I'll have to check into that, but it isn't just the CDC, but there's a whole atmosphere around the corona virus, the whole medical establishment, so-called science journals. Actually, there are medical journals that shouldn't be called scientific journals anyway, but I think it was the article in Nature. There was talk going around based on news releases from the National Institutes for Health and the CDC.
For example, that they had a year ago, August, it was 2019, closed the former germ warfare lab and high security, a virology lab at Fort Dietrich, that they had closed it for sloppiness. They had more than a thousand leaks in a short period. So the CDC made a big thing of closing the whole lab on the basis of sloppiness. And that was in the news, and of course China knew about the Fort Dietrich's history of germ warfare research.
And so it was widely known around the world that there were lab leaks, and China had reason to suspect there could be germ warfare leaks coming from that lab. And so there was talk, even before it was announced that there would be a pandemic, there was talk going back and forth that germ warfare research in Wuhan might be the source of the virus. And then others remembered that the virus research had been moved from University of North Carolina and Fort Dietrich to Wuhan.
That was responsible for breaking the moratorium on gain of function of virus research because of its dangers. He broke the moratorium by taking the research to Wuhan. Calling it a US virus and Trump was calling it a Chinese virus. And somehow that they agreed to stop calling it a national lab produced virus. And suddenly there was a world agreement 850 published papers, I think starting with that nature article claiming that it was a virus that was impossible to have produced in the laboratory.
And despite the papers from Ralph Barrick's lab at the University of North Carolina explaining exactly how to do it, but these people in the Nature article said it just isn't something that could be done in the lab. 850 articles came out asserting as a fact that the virus had jumped directly from an animal to humans. And in that same period, not a single paper that was published exploring the hypothesis that it could be a leaked laboratory modified virus. Showing that the journals basically are conspiring to suppress actual science about putting out heavily propagandistic publications.
Yeah, that does seem like they tried to overwhelm any kind of different opinion with just sheer numbers of articles. Now, just from my own dim awareness, I've noticed that the Nobel Prize winning virologist in France, you probably know his name, I can't think of it. He said it was definitely man-made. Montante. Thank you. And also, there was some virologist, I believe in a Scandinavian country that put out an article, they concluded it was definitely man-made. So there is a debate going on. Yeah, but they can't get published basically.
That's one of my biggest troubles about this whole deal is that there seems to be a lot of scientific issues that need to be worked out, but nobody's working them out. We're just going in one direction, full speed ahead for the edge of the cliff, which is a public policy that destroys the rest of our society. Yeah, and they're doing it in the name of science, absolutely anti-science in every way. No questioning, no looking at the evidence, manipulating the numbers that had been agreed upon for weeks and weeks.
The crude sort of propaganda claiming that it is done in the name of science. We were talking about the death certificate criteria being changed suddenly, and the other thing they've changed recently that seemed very odd was the science used to determine what is in epidemiology, what is called a case of something, a case of a certain disease. And my understanding is that in order for something to be called a case, you actually had to exhibit symptoms of the illness itself. It couldn't just be a medical marker, and now they've changed.
I think that's how they're getting these astronomical numbers of cases with these questionable tests. I'm calling them questionable because they've never been verified, but they're using them on everybody. As if they determine something, could you weigh in on the tests? Yeah, I looked at the, when they were talking about the epidemic recurring in Texas and Florida, and reporting, historically, 12 more deaths today in Texas from COVID-50, more deaths today, 100 more deaths today and so on.
I looked at the rate of giving any kind of test that they use to identify the virus and looked at the graph of accumulating total deaths from all causes. And the so-called COVID deaths, the COVID deaths were piling up at exactly the same rate that the increased number of tests given increased. So they were simply testing more people and the so-called cases of COVID increased exactly the same rate as the number of tests given.
And that was happening in both Texas and Florida, and meanwhile, the total number of deaths from all causes went on increasing at the normal rate, not showing any noticeable deviation from the supposed recurrence of the epidemic. Yeah, now that's Michael Levitt, also a Nobel Prize winning chemist, I believe, but he's an expert in mathematical modeling, and he got involved basically doing some modeling of the course of the disease earlier on, and I think you're aware of his work, aren't you, Ray? No.
Oh, you're not. Okay, he did some pretty good explanations, I thought, of, you know, basically agreeing with Ian Edis and others like him saying that, and you, saying that the evidence really wasn't there to support the idea of a pandemic. He was saying, perhaps, a serious flu, basically, on that scale, but not a pandemic, and he was saying the lockdown was a grave and tragic overreaction. Anyway, he was talking about the test being very unreliable and basically meaningless, and the only thing that has any meaning in this case is the excess death rate.
Why don't you explain excess deaths because you'll do it a lot better than I will, and he basically said the excess death rate was no more than a bad flu season. Yeah, the winter mortality in the northern hemisphere goes with the months that people stay indoors because of the weather. And it's several percent higher than in the summer from whatever cause, but especially respiratory diseases, deaths are higher in the winter, not just respiratory diseases, but things that are now said to be mysteriously new symptoms produced by
COVID, blood clotting, lung inflammation, lung hemorrhages, strokes, things, childhood, blood vessel diseases, all kinds of micro vessel capillary malfunctions. They're blaming them on COVID, but they're traditionally part of respiratory disease in general, caused by influenza or whatever causes lung malfunction, because your lungs are the organ that detoxifies serotonin produced from stress and sepsis, for example. And so anything that kills you is going to cause this range of symptoms, but especially respiratory diseases, messing up the organ that detoxifies serotonin, which is the mediator of all of these
preparely catastrophic conditions, and staying indoors, breathing air with low relative humidity prepares your respiratory membranes to be irritated and attacked by bacteria or whatever virus circulates in the closed environment. So there's always a multi-cause, but respiratory related considerable increase in deaths in the winter cold months. Yeah, they're making a big deal out of the second wave coming when the weather gets colder again. Well, they were even predicting a second wave coming earlier. Part of it is the flu season is hitting the southern hemisphere, so they're having actually their first real flu season since the pandemic.
And I've noticed a nice coordination between what Fauci says, predicting it's getting worse, and what Klaus Schwab, President of the World Economic Forum, is saying that the worst is yet to come, and that is going to lead through more lockdowns to the worst recession since the 1930s, and so drastic action has to be taken to change the economy drastically, make things more efficient, meaning automated and online substitute economy and getting out of this middle class production retail system that has been the basis of civilization for two or three hundred years.
So that's a big subject, and maybe we should just leave the data for a minute and talk about why perhaps this is all happening and why it does seem so odd, and the reaction seems uncalled for unless you're looking to actually change society in a huge way Did we talk about the Rockefeller Foundation report before 2010?
No, I've never talked about that with you before, and I think that is part of the basis of what's going on in our government, which is getting no press, although Whitney Webb, I should point out if people want to Google her name, she's done a lot of reporting on this what I would call the deep state, it's people who are planning our future for us without asking whether we want to do it or not.
And you wrote in your newsletter recently, Ray, about Eric Schmidt, who I think was the former head of Google, and now maybe CEO of Alphabet, the parent corporation of Google, and he's running the National Defense Commission on Artificial Intelligence And it should be remembered that the Pentagon helped finance the origin of Google, so from Pentagon to Google, and back to the Pentagon, it's not really a switch. He's representing the same interests that have been there for visible for 20 or 30 years, if you look back at their wish list, what should be happening?
To be empathetic with them, they're very worried that we're going to be taken over in the field of artificial intelligence from Asian powers, so Chinese, particularly who they feel are getting the edge on us on artificial intelligence, and they feel like we can't actually compete with them unless we have a more authoritarian society.
So basically, they're saying if we want to compete in the field of artificial intelligence with the rest of the world and be on top, we're going to have to basically chuck our democratic pluralistic society into the garbage bin and become more like the autocratic societies in Asia. The Rockefeller Foundation report in 2010 listed four scenarios for the future, lockstep, that becoming more like China, but totally automated.
That was only one of them. The other three were equally focused on the necessity of the internet and digitalizing things to survive, showing the horrible consequences if we didn't digitalize and get into lockstep. How does digitalizing relate to lockstep? Is that with digital banking where they can control your banking? Eric Schmidt gave a speech just a little over a year ago when he was already chairman of the Commission on National Defense Commission on Artificial Intelligence, and he outlined the important things that had to be done to the economy.
Making education digital and online, making transportation, not having personal cars, but only self-driving cars, something that a single corporation like Google can do better than anyone for coordinating transportation digitally. Doing online shopping, Schmidt said that the shopping experience online is very pleasant, especially if you can't get anything elsewhere. During this pandemic time, a year after Schmidt's speech, it happens that Jeff Bezos' wealth in a period of just a few weeks coinciding with the pandemic, his wealth increased $25 billion. Showing just how prophetic Schmidt was, if you can't get it locally, you have to shop online.
He's going to be the only game in town after a while. They'll be the best ones to do virtual reality education, online experiences that can be made available to everyone, but the best quality will have to be done by the super corporations that have the best computing technology to produce these virtual reality experiences. Geez, Governor Cuomo, during the pandemic, announced that he was appointing Schmidt as his assistant to apply those things to New York State, rethinking the economy, especially education.
Yeah, now why would he do that? Just on the turn of a dime like that. It seems like an extraordinary decision to make for one person to take that responsibility for that. Yeah, it isn't just Governor Cuomo, but one person, he knows he's backed up by Bill Gates and the Pentagon. Yeah, I think that must be the case, because otherwise he wouldn't dare make that decision. Yeah, Bill Gates is big into investing in charter schools, several year experiment, costing a billion dollars, mostly taxpayer money, created a system of partnership, so-called between public and charter schools.
And a study by the Rand Corporation, definitely not a progressive organization, said that there were absolutely no improvements in education by that billion dollar investment. And Bill Gates said, no matter, it did produce changes in the country, and so we're going to do it some more. The changes don't have to be improving education, but changing the way money flows. Yeah, that's why this is so dystopian, what they're planning for really degraded society. I mean, it seems like we'll be less than human with everything virtual.
Yeah, but they are propagandizing and using the panic created by nothing happening pandemic. People are being heard by that into this anti human virtual reality. Yeah, I think the pandemic is the catalyst that they're using to make this change. But one comment on the catalyst idea. Okay, several months ago, Klaus Schwab said the climate change story was very productive, was moving the economy in the direction we want, but the pandemic is a great promoter of our program. It's just what we need, much faster than the so-called planetary warming story for changing the economy.
That was a matter of several years or decades even, and to change the economy, but this can do it in a year. Yeah, I think they were getting frustrated with it. And I'm saying they because I'm speaking of the World Economic Forum, which the guy you're talking about, Klaus Schwab created. I think maybe 20 years ago. And that consists basically of billionaires from around the world, billionaires and people who work for them in government, like government leaders.
And so it's really the oligarchy meeting every year in Davos and putting together what amounts to a business plan. Some people might easily say we were talking about conspiracy theories, except that it's actually a plan they have for us all.
They're promoting it. It's not secret. You can go online and if you Google your search engine, the fourth industrial revolution, and the great reset, those two terms, you'll find the great reset is Charles Schwab basically, and lots of people, they're all paying to promote this, talking about the great benefits to society that will come from this. Basically, it's a world government, wouldn't you say? They're promoting government or corporation or cartel.
Yeah, right. And I think there'll be less rights, less human rights, and less representation of anything that we actually need as humans. That's my take on it. But I think there might be some good things, like a guaranteed national income, and I think he's selling it also as an environmental solution to the real problem we have in this world of pollution. But to my mind, it's an undemocratic solution, and therefore fascistic, and ultimately will lead to some horror.
But the other thing I wanted to bring up was the fourth industrial revolution. Have you looked into that? Yeah, they have invented a whole new way of looking at the history of the industrial revolution, and these terms are part of their business plan. Distinctions between second and third and fourth aren't really meaningful to economic thinking or social political thinking. It's really just referring to their digitizing automating society. It seems a little more horrific than that to me, in that it's about transhumanism, where they're going to be modifying people's bodies to become more robot-like, and more...
There was something I read where they're actually inserting things in you, or somehow chemically monitoring your thoughts, so that your thoughts will be transferable to a machine, and you'll be able... Do you know anything about that? Yeah, they do mention those things. The most technical, insane parts of that orientation are talking about those robot technologies. But the more practical ones, like Klaus Schwab, are confident that they can do it with virtual reality online education, universalized and standardized, which means gigantic unemployment of teachers and professors at all levels,
because only the best of each category will be good enough to make universal and impose on everyone. Yeah, and most controllable too, I imagine. That reminds me of what sort of happened to the entertainment world when, you know, 100 years ago, when there was no television, I think there was no television, then maybe there was just starting, or 150 years ago, when there was no radio.
You know, everybody in every town entertained themselves. Everybody knew how to play an instrument, or almost everybody did, and there were local bands, and that sounds like they're going to do to the rest of society what television and radio did to entertainment. Yeah, I've been objecting that, for example, the term world class, soloist, for example, world class orchestra, as if it's an Olympic competition to be a violinist or a French or whatever.
And it really directs public attention away from local people. You can find brilliant performers on just about any category of culture and entertainment on a local level. They are failing to have opportunity to develop their craft because of this nonsense idea of world class, everything, but it's going to be applied to education, world class physics lecture is going to become the rule that you can't waste time on criticism of questioning their assumptions and so on. Yeah, I hope I have a say because I don't like this idea at all.
And I hope other people sort of realize what's happening. I think a lot of people are just plain scared because the news has just been traumatizing for everybody. If you watch, tell her, if you turn the radio on, it seems like you hear about the coronavirus every second. Yeah, people have to start questioning. Is there really anything happening that we should fear and maybe start questioning?
Was there criminality involved in using taxpayer money to break an official government moratorium on that class of research to spend taxpayer money to move that research and continue it in violation of the moratorium to China? That's a very good point. And that was to continue the gain of function research. And maybe if you could just quickly explain what gain of function is to everybody.
It was developed far back in the 1950s and 60s. They were openly, not very openly, but you can find out if you inquired at changing bacteria and viruses and funguses to produce more virulent individuals, more communicable strains. Of these pathogens to be used deliberately for germ or biological warfare. And Richard Nixon openly ordered the ending of germ warfare, biological warfare research.
But the same year that he outlawed that kind of research, I talk to someone who had quit his job at the Fort Dietrich lab because he said that the people there are crazy, they're working on a virus that will specifically destroy an ethnic or racially selective manner, the immune resistant system. And I thought the idea was so unrealistic. It didn't worry me until a couple years later when papers came out of the Fort Dietrich research demonstrating an actual racial difference in our immune systems,
making us differentially susceptible to viral infections. And that the defense of continuing coronavirus or influenza or wheat rust or woof and mouth disease was the favorite one. Our argument was we need to duplicate the weaponized changes in these organisms that our enemies would be developing as germ warfare. But since it's illegal now to do germ warfare research, what we're doing is developing these organisms in a defensive way so we can make an antibody or something.
To protect us against these intensified pathogens, the gain of function changes proceeded to make viruses more able to attack humans that had never been able to get out of their animal hosts in the humans through dozens of transition changes that they were able to make them human pathogens. All of that was published, but they said it's gain of function research, but for peaceful use because our enemies might be doing this and we'll possibly have a vaccine to protect ourselves.
They have never come up publicly with any functional vaccine for protection, but they insist on continuing the gain of function, basically weaponizing research, but claiming that it's purely a peaceful project. Yeah, and I think they don't even frame it in terms of somebody else coming up with a chemical weapon, they just say that we're trying to get out ahead of evolutionary changes in the virus so that we have a vaccine ready for it. I've heard that stated. Yeah, that was an update on the public relations of germ warfare.
Okay, that makes sense. And they're definitely corralling us towards a vaccine that's been talked of from day one. I mean, I think Mr. Fauci said that he didn't even want herd immunity. He said that flat statement right at the beginning, we want immunity from a vaccine. I'm not sure how he justified that. You don't have any corporate profits from natural herd immunity. Yeah, that's what I was afraid of. What do you know about Fauci's background, Ray, is he been with the pharmaceutical companies all his life and then basically is their man in government?
The outstanding thing was in 1985 when basically the US wanted to claim the HIV virus that Luke Montagnier and France had identified and sent to the US. So it was on records that originated in France, but it was fraudulently claimed to have been discovered in the US so they could get the whole scientific credit for it. But memos were being sent internally. And it was all under Fauci's supervision. He was aware of these memos showing that Luke Montagnier was actually the discoverer.
And it was a fairly crude fraud that had been discovered. I can't remember the guy's name. But the person claiming to have discovered it in the US promised that he would basically confess in a publication and give credit to Montagnier. And so after he got them to back off from making a public that he had been lying, he re-nigged on his promise to confess in a publication. And all of that happened under Fauci's supervision. So what was the advantage of discovering it? Was that money? Was it fame or both? Yeah, fame is money.
Now Montagnier, he won a Nobel Prize. Was it for the HIV work he did? I think so. And I know you've talked about HIV before and this is probably another whole other subject. But how did Duesberg fit into that? Because he had an alternative viewpoint on HIV? Yeah, he just pointed out that the frozen blood samples going back to the 1960s showed exactly the same presence, half percent, four tenths to 0.5 percent incidence in healthy people's blood samples. No change in 50 years. So he's been saying, "Where is the evidence that the virus causes AIDS?"
And pointing out that they have now changed the definition of AIDS to mean having a bunch of infections. And the whole idea that a bad way of living, being poor, malnourished and exposed to parasites, bacteria, fungus, viruses and so on, that the immune burden damages your immune system, that that idea went out of style along with Peter Duesberg's criticism. No one ever could answer Duesberg's observation. He's been strictly asking for, "Where is the evidence that HIV causes AIDS?" And no one has ever been able to answer that.
So they simply cut off his research funding, stopped inviting him or letting him speak at scientific meetings. He was simply exiled from the world of science because they couldn't answer his criticisms. I think that's one of the things that the general public is just not aware of. What a battlefield science is and how it's really quite vicious. It doesn't matter what the truth is. And if anybody's interested in learning more about Duesberg, there's a movie I found recently called "House of Numbers," have you seen that?
Somebody made a documentary about the controversy over AIDS, and it seemed great. I watched the excerpt with Duesberg. He was fantastic. An interesting guy, to be sure. So, "House of Numbers," if anybody wants to look that up on the Internet, I think you can watch it for free on YouTube. Let's see. So, just to bring it all back home, Ray, I was wondering if we could, like Michael Levitt recommended, just look at the excess or the total fatalities or mortalities to date for this year.
I don't know if we can reliably see that data. Considering that they have changed their reporting style and changed the numbers going back 25 weeks, I don't think there's any reason we should believe anything they're saying now. Okay, just on the face of that. If they can't explain why they've radically changed things that never happened in history, anything comparable, they should at least try to make a better explanation if they ask us to believe anything they're saying. Do you think they're actually inventing new deaths, or are they just moving existing deaths around?
So far, all I can see is that they've moved deaths over a period of several months to create the peaks. I see. But I don't doubt that America was having somewhat higher deaths in the hospitals from putting tubes, power driven, oxygen delivering systems are well documented to kill people if you keep them on them for a few weeks. Yeah, you were right on about that. In our earlier shows this year, back in February, you nailed that.
And eventually, some of the medical world, anyway, I heard quite a few doctors saying that that was a big problem and that they'd actually killed a lot of people inadvertently thinking that they needed to be in ventilators. Yeah, and these two doctors in particular were observing changes that were just like high-altitude mountain sickness changes, loss of carbon dioxide, increase of nitric oxide and so on. Their observations have continued to be exactly right. No one has contradicted them, but no one is recognizing that they were right and that the ventilators were killing people.
Yeah, I think driving off carbon dioxide by pumping oxygen in carbon dioxide is our basic anti-inflammatory factor and inflammation of every part of the body is what kills people from pneumonia, influenza, sepsis or COVID. It's all inflammatory breakdown of tissues and organs and my carbon dioxide is our first defense against all of those inflammatory processes. You went into that in detail on my earlier shows, which can be found at radio for numeral for all forward slash politics and science. You'll find those shows with Dr. Raymond Peat, who I'm talking to today.
So Ray, even though they've messed with the numbers and moved them around, if we looked at the total mortality for the United States for this year and we had a pandemic, you should see unusually high numbers. Like they're saying, on the face of it, they're saying 150 people now are 160,000 people have died from COVID. They don't say if they died with COVID from other causes, but I'll leave that alone for now. Even on the face of the total mortality, do you see that we've experienced a pandemic? There should be extra deaths.
Yeah, I haven't seen any evidence of that. Okay, so that still holds. So that's a big elephant in the room that nobody seems to be talking about. Well, thanks, Ray, for talking about it with us today, and maybe we'll get the elephant to leave the room and we can get back to normal eventually. Anything else you'd like to add, Ray, that we've neglected, we've kind of been all over the place. No, I would recommend looking up at Danny Rancourt's interview with Dell Big Tree. Okay.
It's largely about mask wearing, but the important thing is that he grasped in a very visible way how the CDC was manipulating figures. Okay, I will look that up. You sent me the link, and I've never done this before, but when I post this show on my podcast page at Radio 4 All, I will try to add some links in the comments section that people can see what you're talking about. Okay. All right, well, Dr. Raymond, Peat, thanks so much for being on today, and be well. We'll talk to you soon.
Okay, thank you. Thanks, Ray. All right, you've been listening to Dr. Raymond Peat, physiologist and science historian. He has a PhD in biology from the University of Oregon. He lives in Oregon, and we were talking about the coronavirus and its implications for society. If you'd like to hear this again, you can go to Radio 4 All, A-L-L, and once you get to the radioforall.net, you can type in the search field, politics and science, and you'll find the show. It's the first one on top. I'll try to provide some links in the comments section.
I hope you enjoyed the show. I've been your host, John Barkhausen, and please tune in again next week for another edition of Politics and Science.