I guess I have 3 related questions.
Is Risch contributing to honest scientific debate or spreading deza?
Do the medical and scientific establishments have any sort of obligation to act when someone within their profession crosses that line?
What should they do in those cases?
I think he's doing more the former. He's made a couple of claims about the vaccine that factually are not true, like "50-60% of new COVID patients were vaccinated," which would fall into the latter. I'm not sure that alone is grounds for getting his license revoked.
He's very enthusiastic about the potential of HCQ. Is that deza? I don't know. Maybe we'll find out he has some kind of vested stake in its use, and that will bring to light a conflict of interest or ethical violation worthy of the board revoking his license. Or he could genuinely believe it is an important treatment being undersold by the FDA.
I don't agree with his use of rhetoric that you cited, but that's evidence of him being a crappy debater/communicator...he could still be a perfectly good epidemiologist /doctor. I disagree with him in this particular instance, but I've argued here many times that the FDA is painfully slow, which has led to the death and suffering of untold numbers of people, but running around saying they've got "blood on their hands" probably isn't the most effective tactic to make that point.
At the end of the day, there's just a lot of gray area and a lot of unknows, so I'd urge caution. I think most of us here (maybe not all), would be fine with the medical community disowning a member who says something patently false with the intent of stopping people from getting the vaccine - like "the gov't is injecting you with microchips to control your mind." But most of the debate is happening within a spectrum that looks pretty reasonable to me. Too often during this pandemic, yesterday's deza became tomorrow's official narrative, and vice versa. Given that, my bar for wanting to suppress people's speech would be pretty darn high.