Dr. Richard Fleming – COVID 19 is a bioweapon

Richard Fleming gave a statement about covid crimes happening in connection with vaccination and the virus itself. 

Transcript – Copied from


Covid crimes


  1. Richard Fleming


X: Dr. Fleming, we have asked you to come testify as to whether covid-19 and related vaccines are a deliberate biological attack on the United States. Madam Associate Speaker, could you please identify yourself for the record?

Karen Usher: My name is Karen Usher, Texas CSR 5536.

X: Thank you. Can you take the witness under oath, please?

KU: Dr. Fleming, please raise your right hand. This is the oath for today’s testimony: you will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, God help you?

RF: Yes.

X: Dr. Fleming, do you consent to this testimony being used in any relevant legal proceedings?

RF: Yes, I agree.


Titles and references

X: First let me list some of your qualifications: you have a very impressive 90-page resume, I won’t list everything, but briefly – are you a doctor?

RF: Yes, I am.

X: So you have an MD degree, as it is known?

RF: Yes.

X: And in which field do you specialize?

RF: Nuclear cardiology, cardiology and internal medicine.

X: Are you also a member of professional medical societies?

RF: Yes, I am.

X: Are you a member of the American College of Medicine?

RF: Yes.

X: And are you a member of the American Society of Internal Medicine?

RF:  Yes.

X: And you also have a PhD.

RF: Yes.

X: In which area?

RF: Physics.

X: And you also have a law degree, known as a JD.

RF: Yes, I do.

X: And you are also an inventor in the field of medicine?

RF: Yes.

X: Can you quickly explain to us what kind of medical inventions you have?

RF: They were about being able to image the body and determine what disease processes are going on in it by looking at metabolism and blood flow.

X: Do you hold patents for your inventions?

RF: Yes, I am.

X: Can we say that you are familiar with the world of medical patents?

RF: Yes.

X: So you are able to read and interpret medical patents?

RF: Yes, I am.

X: And you are also the author of professional articles?

RF: Yes.

X: Approximately how many?

RF: Probably between 400 and 500.

X: Were you also part of the editorial board of professional magazines?

RF: Editorial board and review board of journals.

X: Briefly, what is a journal review board?

RF: The duty of the members is, when some material is sent for publication in a professional journal, to look at the material, to check whether it has scientific value, whether it can mean progress in the given scientific field, and to recommend to the review board whether the material should be accepted, edited or rejected for publication.


part 1

Is covid-19 a biological weapon?

X: Are you here today ready to testify that covid-19 is a biological weapon?

RF: Yes, I am.

X: You wrote a book in which you ask the question: Is covid-19 a biological weapon? Is that so?

RF: Right. The role of the book was to provide information that would be available to the general public and also to provide evidence for legal

and the medical system to understand gain of function research that has been going on for decades; show where the money is coming from, what papers have been published, show what types of gain-of-function research has occurred, and point to patents to make it clear what work has been done over two decades, funded mainly by the United States, although others were also involved states, and also to show that there is no evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes covid-19, there is no evidence that it occurs naturally, there is no animal model for it, and to point to the research that has been done with coronaviruses that has been funded by the United States, supported by NIAID, NIH, Department of Defense, money that went to Peter Daszak and EcoHealth, Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina,

X: Have you also looked at the genetic code of the SARS-Cov-2 virus and especially at its spike protein?

RF: Yes, as well as Professor Luc Montagnier, the man who discovered the HIV virus, and a few other people we name in the book.

X: And based on the analysis of the genetic code of the virus, you came to the conclusion that it is a biological weapon?

RF: Yes. The Convention on the Prohibition of Biological Weapons states that any modification or alteration of a biological agent, such as a virus, that does not benefit humanity is a biological weapon. These particular changes to the virus, including PRRA inserts, which are amino acids that have been inserted that are critical to the furin cleavage site for the virus to be infectious, inserts that have been made in HIV and simian and simian-like viruses equivalent to HIV, the prion a similar domain at the top of the spike protein, as well as the glycoprotein-120 HIV insert inserted by Shi Zhengli early on, which is critical for attachment to cells, neither of which occurs naturally.

X: So just to be clear – the SARS-Cov-2 virus otherwise known as covid-19, and in particular its spike protein, isn’t something that just evolves on its own in nature?

RF: We looked at all the possible coronaviruses that are on the planet, none of them have PRRA inserts, none of them have as many HIV inserts, none of them have the regional binding domain, which is a prion-like domain, which means that the place , where it attaches to the cell, is a prion-like domain. And prions are abnormal proteins that cause other proteins to become abnormally folded.

X: So the genetic changes were made in the lab on the spike protein of what is now known as covid-19 – right?

RF: That’s what the data points to.

X: Your book refers to the research of Shi Zhengli, who is often called the bat woman, from 2010. Was the aim of this research to increase the binding capacity of the spike protein to the human ACE-2 receptor?

RF: The goal of that research was to increase the infectivity of the virus for human cells.

X: Interestingly, in published research, they found that the naturally occurring horseshoe spike protein (a species of bat) is unable to bind to the human ACE-2 receptor.

RF: That’s right.

X: So from By 2010, scientists, including Shi Zhengli in Wuhan, China, knew that the naturally occurring spike protein of the horseshoe coronavirus was unable to infect humans.

RF: Exactly.

X: Based on your testimony, it sounds like you discovered at least two human-added “inserts” in the genetic code of the SARS-Cov-2 spike protein, proving it was created in a lab.

RF: Yes, from research articles that

Shi Zhengli and Baric and others had published, it was clear, and were proud of their ability to modify the virus to make it more infectious and potentially dangerous.

X: Is there some laboratory mechanism by which they could have taken the genetic code from somewhere else and inserted it into the virus?

RF: Well, you can basically put anything together if you know the structure. It’s like building a car: if you know the parts, you can put them together. Many of the research studies that we have have shown that they took pieces from one virus and put them together with pieces of another virus. If you look closely at those studies, you will also find that they specifically put in 5 nucleotide base pairs so they swapped the base pairs, causing different amino acids and a different protein to be added.

X: Let’s talk about the first insert you found in the SARS-Cov-2 virus that you concluded was a man-made bioweapon. I think you call the first “PRRA furin cleavage insert”, right?

RF: Right.

X: Can you briefly explain what it is?

RF: Ok, it’s 4 amino acids that were inserted. When that virus gets attached – and I know it’s very complicated because a lot of people have heard about ACE-2, which is one of the receptors. Well, it’s a multi-step process. The HIV glycoprotein-120 insert, which was the other one we talked about, has to attach to the sialic acid receptor raft that stabilizes it in place. The virus then comes into contact with the ACE-2 receptor, which then undergoes a change through the so-called TMPRSS-2 receptor, which is critical for understanding because it initiates the process of virus entry into the cell. It then has to undergo cleavage by furins at the “furin cleavage site,” which is PRRA, which causes high infectivity for human cells, and then it passes through something known as the neuropilin-1 receptor, which is found in the brain.

X: How did you find out that this PRRA insert of the furin cleavage site was done on the SARS-Cov-2 virus?

RF: You just have to do nucleotide base sequencing, from which we know how all the variants occur, and when you do that, you find this PRRA insert.

X: Is this genetic code for the cleavage site of furins, i.e. PRRA, found in nature in coronaviruses?

RF: No.

X: Is it not found in any coronaviruses that exist in the wild?

RF: There is absolutely no coronavirus that has this PRRA insert. It is 12 nucleotide bases. Not a single base, like sickle cell, but 12 specific nucleotide bases that cater to four amino acids, very specifically linked to the furin cleavage site, which is patented by the US government.

X: What does the fact that this insert, the genetic code for it, is not found anywhere in nature, in any other coronavirus, tell you?

RF: Well, since mutations occur 1 nucleotide base at a time, you have to come up with some phenomenal explanation for why 12 nucleotide bases were inserted into a virus at once, when none of the viruses in that category have them The original premise that was presented and even published in the Lancet , was that it is a naturally occurring virus with an animal host that infected humans. However, in its favor, not a single animal model of transmission has been found, and not a single coronavirus with such a PRRA insert has been found.

X: You mentioned the other nipple – the HIV glycoprotein…

RF: Yes.

X: So you’re saying that parts of the HIV genetic code were inserted into the SARS-Cov-2 virus?

RF: Yes, Shi Zhengli posted it a long time ago. Many years ago. She was very proud of the fact that she was able to do this, she used the HIV pseudovirus to do it. And we also know that glycoprotein-120 is a prion.

X: So this is HIV that became known in the 1980s and 1990s. It’s the HIV.

RF: Yes.

X: And someone took bits of HIV’s genetic code and put it into SARS-Cov-2?

RF: Yes, she admitted to that in Shi Zhengli’s published articles.

X: Did you work out why someone did it?

RF: According to the articles she published, to increase infectivity, to see if she could make it more infectious. But it is even more obvious that it involved prion disease. Because when everyone comes with a virus and how difficult it can be to deal with, what is even more difficult to deal with is prions. Because prion diseases are relatively new to our understanding of treatment and cause permanent damage if they cannot be reversed. So the involvement of the prion, the glycoprotein-120 of HIV, the attachment to the sialic acid receptor, there is absolutely nothing in all of this that would be beneficial to humans, and the ability to cause prion diseases is a very significant biological weapon.

X: How deadly are prion diseases?

RF: People die from prion diseases.

X: This process of inserting amino acids to increase infectivity, is it a gain of function?

RF:Gain of function is anything you do to change a naturally occurring biological agent like this virus. And the premise of getting a job has a good premise in it. The original idea was that if you can stay one step ahead of a potentially infectious agent, e.g. coronavirus, you can get people treated and know where and when it might spread. This is not one step ahead. This is not a single nucleotide base. This is a spike protein that has an HIV insert with glycoprotein-120. This is a spike protein that has 4 amino acids to form the furin cleavage site, the PRRA insert. This is a spike protein that, according to Luc Montagnier, has multiple HIV and SIV inserts. This is not something that came about through evolution. By evolution, the creation of such a thing would take hundreds or thousands of years. We don’t want to stay one step ahead of the contagion here. And the production of this (virus) did not provide any benefit to human beings, thereby violating the Biological Weapons Convention. This is a game of God.

X: Have you heard of anyone debunking the theory that there are man-made inserts in the SARS-Cov-2 virus?

RF: Actually, no one disputed that except to say that it was something that happened naturally. And when you ask where is the scientific proof that it occurred naturally, no answer follows. So for people who say this is a scientific debate, I would encourage them to stick to a scientific debate. There is no scientific evidence that any coronavirus on the planet has these inserts, there is no scientific evidence that there is an animal host in which this virus occurs, on the contrary, there is scientific evidence with over 99% probability that here we say until someone comes along to disprove that such a thing does not occur naturally.

X: Do you personally have any doubt that without this gain-of-function manipulation of the spike protein of the SARS-Cov-2 virus, there would be no pandemic?

RF: If they hadn’t released the virus, we wouldn’t be like this.

X: Did any of these people – Daszak, Baric, Shi Zhengli, Fauci – explain what the supposed advantage (of this modification) was?

RF: Well, until now they have continued the conversation with arguments along the lines of “we did nothing of the sort.” Even though the evidence is already clear. But as we’ve learned over the past few months, the NIH and NIAID have already admitted, not that it was necessary, but it’s nice that they’ve already admitted that the research to get the job was funded by the United States and that Fauci’s statements that they weren’t part of the research to get the function, were not true.


2nd part

Covering up

X: Dr. Fauci testified under oath in a congressional hearing under questioning from Senator Rand Paul that the NIH and NIAID did not fund research to get the job. Was it true?

RF: As we’ve shown and as we’ve just talked about, it was a lie.

X: And this lie can be proven with publicly available documents?

RF:dr. Fauci has denied under oath that they provided any research to get the job, despite the fact that we have a record of long-running research to get the job. Even the research to get the job was going on during the Clinton administration, when it was officially stopped due to the concerns of scientists like myself who saw that there could be problems with infections that would get out during the research. That money was still being poured around, especially through Peter Daszak, through whom it reached Baric and Shi Zhengli and other sources. And their denial that there is any connection between them is in stark contrast to the publications that mention the names of both Barica and Shi Zhengli. Publications can be found citing their NIH funding, so this was a poorly kept secret. Since then, the NIH has even released a statement admitting

X: Part of the research to obtain the function, or his goal was to make the spike protein of the coronavirus infectious to humans until then.

RF: From the research grants paid by the United States, from the publications of Shi Zhengli and others, from the published patents, it is clear that their specific goal was to increase and enable these viruses to have the ability to infect, especially the HKU4 virus and the HIV pseudovirus, inserts with glycoprotein -120, with that Shi Zhengli and others were dealing with, that their goal was to make it more infectious, and they succeeded.

X: Who were the main players in these genetic engineering experiments?

RF: The main ones we know of are Peter Dazsak at EcoHealth, Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina, and Shi Zhengli at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But we know that other individuals, other universities, including here in Texas, were involved.

X:  How did you manage to uncover that research to get the position and who funded it?

RF: There were a lot of interesting sources, suggesting where to look, but basically I did what any researcher would do when they want answers to their questions. If you know what to ask, you will get a wealth of information that is available. So I started going through resources about federal funding, especially looking at EcoHealth and research to get the job done, which allowed me to come across specific grant numbers, which is what’s publicly available. You don’t have to believe me, it can be verified how much those grants were, whether they came from the Ministry of Defense, which by the way paid for more than half of them.

X: And did you find that there were any attempts to conceal the funding of this research?

RF: There were many attempts, not very clever in my opinion, including the Lancet. Dazsak and many others got together and published that this was obviously a naturally occurring virus, doing everything imaginable to litter the scientific medical literature so that people wouldn’t think address the possibility that this is research to gain function and a substance developed in a laboratory as a biological weapon.

X: Has this research violated any international treaties or laws?

RF:The Biological Weapons Convention is very clear: it states that any pathogen, in this case a virus, that has no benefit to humanity is a violation of the Biological Weapons Convention. And it should be noted that this is a convention that the US has signed and ratified. Art. 6 of the US Constitution says that state laws must be based on international agreements. Signing and ratification of the Convention on the Prohibition of Biological Weapons, signing and ratification of the Convention on Civil and Political Rights, participation of the United States in the Nuremberg trials in 1947 and on the writing of the Nuremberg Code, establishing behavior towards patients, the Declaration of Helsinki, to which the USA committed itself regarding patients in the framework of research, the Code of Ethics of the American Medical Association regarding informed consent… Anyone who would violate any of the above has already proven, that he is not interested in the informed consent of the patient and his rights, but if he violates an international treaty, he violates the US Constitution. And anyone who has taken any oath of office, anyone who has ever stood there and sworn to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States, if they then ignore these international treaties, finance the violations of these international treaties, as happened in this case, who refuses to provide patients informed consent, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, if you did that, you violated the US Constitution, and if you swore an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, then you committed treason.

X: How did you react when you concluded that SARS-Cov-2 was a biological weapon released on the planet?

RF: I was very uncomfortable and disappointed. These people have shown nothing to suggest that this type of research would be of any use to humanity in their opinion and considering the sources that funded it…


Part 3

Are these vaccines effective?

RF:When you look at the emergency use approval documents, the documents filed with the FDA, you have to ask yourself two questions – and the data is right there in the emergency use approval documents. The first question is, “How many people will get sick?” And that’s the number we’re talking about—vaccine effectiveness. How many people will get sick if they have been vaccinated versus those who will get sick if they have not been vaccinated. That’s the vaccine effectiveness number. But if you ask why people vaccinate, that’s not why they vaccinate. After all, they get vaccinated so they don’t get sick. This is called absolute risk reduction. But when you look at the approval documents, whether it’s Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, the three that are approved for emergency use in the US, and you ask the basic question of how many people don’t get sick: what about Pfizer, using their own data , there is no statistically significant reduction in cases in the vaccinated relative to the unvaccinated. When you look at Moderna, it’s the same thing – no statistically significant reduction in cases in the vaccinated relative to the unvaccinated. Johnson went the extra mile and looked at the results 14 days after vaccination and 28 days after vaccination. If you look at the data 2 weeks after vaccination, there is a statistically significant reduction. When you evaluate it for another two weeks, which they did, the difference disappears. So if you would like to vaccinate people roughly every two weeks, go for it. So vaccines will not prevent you from getting infected, will not statistically reduce covid cases or deaths, and will not prevent you from transmitting it. We are seeing that right now. No virus comes in one flavor, so to speak. Just like looking around a room full of people, you will see many varieties of people, but they are all people. So SARS-Cov-2 didn’t just come as Wuhan HU-1, alpha, beta, gamma, lambda, delta and other variants, all variations. What we’ve done so far is, for vaccine purposes, we’ve taken all the parts of the virus of all the variants, weakened them, and then injected them into people. So if you were exposed to a different version or other parts of the virus, you would have an immune response. What we did with these vaccines is we said very specifically, let’s look exclusively at the spike protein of that original variant, called Wuhan HU-1, and let’s do that genetic code and turn human cells into a spike protein production line. What caused it? Many of the people who got vaccinated did so because they were worried about other people. It is necessary to understand that these people had good intentions. They were worried, they were scared, they didn’t want someone to get sick because of them, they didn’t want other family members to get sick, they didn’t want the man or woman down the street who was an onco or cardio patient to get sick and as good citizens they were told that it is necessary to undergo it and thanks to you the situation will change. But vaccines won’t keep you from getting sick or spreading it. And so using this approach, we injected people with this mRNA and DNA exclusively for 1 type of spike protein, not for the rest of the virus, not for the nucleocapsid, which turned out to be the part that people make the most effective immune response against, not for the envelope, not for the membrane , not for other spike protein types. One only type! And so what we’re seeing is that people are getting vaccinated with that, and if you watch what’s been happening since then, not only in the US but around the world, as these vaccines have been used, fewer and fewer people have been infected with the original Wuhan HU-1 variants, or if they did, they were prepared for it, but not prepared for the other variants – alpha, beta, gamma, delta, mi, the omicron, as it were people call I call it 21K, but they commonly call it omikron. They had no immune reaction against it. So they had a quick reaction and when they infected other people with the virus, they infected them with a virus that was not attacked and their immune system was not ready for it. And so we’ve done a great job of selecting variants of the virus under pressure, so we’re spreading it and modifying it. And the omicron spike protein is so different from alpha, delta, or Wuhan HU-1 that an immune response just won’t happen. And we’re seeing more and more people with this variant, with these symptoms, spreading it to other people. If you ask whether vaccines work in reducing this, just look at the scientific evidence, at the numbers. Israel: vaccinated most of its population with Pfizer and Moderna. Their delta cases escalated off the charts. They simply made a selection under pressure. We did the same thing in the US where we saw that delta and omicron variants were selected under pressure based on this vaccination program. This didn’t reduce the problem, it just shifted the variants and perpetuated the problem and stressed people out and scared them.

X: In this case, if you look at the data, the difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated, the absolute risk reduction standard was statistically insignificant?

RF: The absolute risk reduction is somewhere between 0.8 and 1.3%.

X: And did the FDA and the producers of those vaccines know that before they introduced them?

RF:What bothers me is that… I mean, I watch those FDA meetings for emergency use approvals, and no one asks at those meetings what the absolute risk reduction rate is. What is the goal of vaccinating people. I watched the FDA meetings for the booster and I don’t know if it was Pfizer or Moderna, I think it was Moderna but I can’t swear to it. The head of the vaccination project said the T-cell response was unimportant. Here, the T-cell response is critical. Because you have T-cells and B-cells. It is a label based on where they come from. But the T-cells, their response is called innate immunity, is critical, and it’s the first thing that happens in humans. B-cells, that is antibody immunity, and it occurs in a person a few days later. But for antibody immunity to occur, the T-cells must function. And from the published data we know and I have provided documentation that Pfizer and Moderna vaccines suppress the T-cell response in vaccinated people. Not only will the number of T-cells decrease, but the chemical compounds they produce will also change. Interferon, as the name implies, prevents the production of viruses, and helper lymphocyte 2, which is a type of T-cell, are critical for proper antibody defense to occur. All of this is suppressed in people who have had these vaccines. When I hear people say that they are “science personified” or big pharma, that it’s all about science, or anyone else, that it’s scientific, I see a distinct lack of scientific integrity and scientific questions being asked, because when you look at the documents to emergency use approval and you do the scientific validation and ask the scientific questions to see if there is a difference, you find that there is none. The data is unambiguous,


Part 4

Are these vaccines safe?

RF:Basic question. Once you understand that the spike protein is a biological weapon with acquired function, then why would you replicate the same genetic sequence and put it into a vaccine? I think most people think that when they get an injection into a muscle, the substance from the injection stays in the muscle. But it doesn’t work that way. The studies are clear. Living nanoparticles from Moderna’s flu vaccine spread to the brain, lungs, liver, spleen, heart, kidneys, intestine, and every part of the animal’s body, they do not stay at the injection site. They inject it directly into your cells, they inject it into the muscle, which has fluid around the cells, which drains into the rest of your body and gets into your bloodstream, which can have very serious consequences. Some of the research we’ve done recently looks at Pfizer, Moderna and J & J vaccines and what happens when they get into the human blood.

X: Is the introduction of spike protein into the body through these so-called vaccines functionally different from introducing the spike protein into the body through the SARS-Cov-2 virus?

RF: When people normally spread infections, they spread hundreds, thousands, or if we want to be generous, tens of thousands of particles by coughing or sneezing on someone, so that’s roughly the amount you’re going to be exposed to. And that’s why we are in 2020 saw so many people with comorbidities because they already had diseases where there was already inflammation and blood clots. For vaccines, the numbers are significantly different. We are no longer talking about thousands or tens of thousands, but billions in vaccines.

X: Billions of spike proteins?

RF:Billions of genetic sequences to produce spike protein. For Pfizer and Moderna, it is 13.1 billion. For J & J and AstraZeneca, it is 50 billion. And the other thing is, in order for the virus to get into your cell, it has to find the ACE-2 receptor that we talked about. Vaccines don’t need it. Lipid nanoparticles simply fuse with your cell membrane. They don’t have to look for the ACE-2 receptor to get in, they just fuse with it and release all those genetic sequences. We see that healthy people react to the vaccinated. Why? Because they are not exposed to thousands or tens of thousands of virus particles from someone coughing or sneezing on them, when that someone should not be coughing or sneezing on them. They will get a boost in the billions. And if they have a functioning healthy body, their immune system perceives it as a massive infection and triggers an immune response. Part of that immune response is inflammation and blood clots. You secrete chemicals that kill infected cells. That’s why your nose runs, they are excreted with that liquid. In addition, blood clots so that the immune system prevents invaders from entering, so that 1) they do not get out and 2) they do not get nutrition and die. So inflammation and blood clots are normal reactions, it’s just that you’re not normally infected by billions of viruses. So healthy people react to something that looks like a nuclear bomb went off in their body and they react accordingly, producing massive inflammation, lots of blood clots, and lots of side effects. And in all the people with the side effects, we see that, and these are young, healthy people, that they’re responding to what to the body looks like a massive infection of the body with all those spike proteins, and we see inflammation, blood clots, we see strokes, seizures, heart disease, miscarriages and deaths that we have never seen before with vaccines that have been administered. I remember a mainstream TV documentary on “60 Minutes” in the 1970s where they exposed the lies and fraud of the FDA and big pharma regarding swine flu vaccines. When there were already 25 deaths, we decided that something had to be done. So for me it doesn’t make much difference whether there were 15,000 or 150,000 deaths. If in In 1976, 25 deaths were enough for people to say that we have to investigate this, and in 2021 15,000 deaths is not enough, we have a problem. that something needs to be done. So for me it doesn’t make much difference whether there were 15,000 or 150,000 deaths. If in In 1976, 25 deaths were enough for people to say that we have to investigate this, and in 2021 15,000 deaths is not enough, we have a problem. that something needs to be done. So for me it doesn’t make much difference whether there were 15,000 or 150,000 deaths. If in In 1976, 25 deaths were enough for people to say that we have to investigate this, and in 2021 15,000 deaths is not enough, we have a problem.

X: Have you seen any evidence that Pfizer, Moderna, J & J did any animal testing prior to applying to the FDA for emergency use approval?

RF: No, he hasn’t, and I have to say that it all calls for animal research before you do it in humans. so you know what’s going to happen. And I’ve done animal research for decades of my life, and there’s a reason to do it: so you don’t experiment on people—unless you’re a Nazi.

X: And if I understand correctly, the VAERS system under the CDC records more injuries and deaths from covid vaccines than vaccines against anything else in the last 30 years.

RF:Is that so. And regardless of whether you believe the numbers, whether you think it’s 1% or 10%, whether there are 1 or 2 zeros behind the numbers. Here are some interesting things about this reporting system: As a physician, I tried to call VAERS. And I worked my way through the phone to a record that dictated another phone number to call. When I called that number it played me a recorded answer and no space to record a link. I have colleagues who tried it on the computer and it kept sending them back. When you come to a hospital or doctor’s office with a side effect from a measles, mumps, or rubella vaccine, a code for that is entered into the computer. If you have side effects from a diphtheria or tetanus vaccine, a code for that is entered into the computer and tracked over time. It’s called a Computerized Procedural Terminology – CPT code.

X: Even though this is part of clinical trials, so they have a legal obligation to monitor side effects, is there no universal code for doctors to enter side effects?

RF: That’s right.

X: Have you ever experienced something like this?

RF: This is the first time.

X: So these are the vaccines that, if I understand correctly, the ones that are available are part of clinical trials that are supposed to last until 2023, right?

RF: That’s how it is stated in the National Register of Clinical Trials.

X: I suppose when clinical trials are done, one of the most important things is to accurately monitor side effects.

RF: In the not-so-distant future, we will look back at 2020 and 2021, especially 2021 and we will wonder how many people actually had side effects after these vaccines?


Part 5

Are these vaccines biological weapons?

X: Have you seen any animal studies done or published by current vaccine manufacturers prior to emergency approval?

RF: I haven’t seen any animal studies from those corporations, either before or after they came up with the vaccines. The only animal studies that were done were done by independent scientists who asked the questions these companies should be asking: what are the consequences of these vaccines for animals?

X: What did the research find?

RF: Research done by independent researchers has shown the presence of damage to the brain and other body organs from viruses and vaccines, called prion diseases, so you can have mad cow disease in the brain or Alzheimer’s, amyloidosis in the heart, which is another type of prion disease. But the animal studies were absolutely clear and consistent: prion diseases, inflammation and blood clots, thrombotic diseases, serious concerns that there would be miscarriages and other diseases, and so none of this was done by Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson or any other company.

X: This animal research may have been done prior to emergency use approval, but we have no evidence that it was done or that it was published.

RF:That research should have been done, it violates all international treaties and the code we have as human beings. There was one instance in history when they skipped animal research and did research on humans first. We prosecuted those people in 1947 in the Nuremberg trials. We also asked what happens if you have the vaccine in your blood. We looked at Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson—all three—and we looked at the effect they have on the blood, and it’s almost immediate. We will look at three example images that we took of seven different patients with three different vaccines. We put blood samples on slides and looked at them with a microscope. In the first image you will see the Pfizer vaccine that has been added to the blood and you will see the nice red color of the erythrocytes, the red blood cells, because they are able to carry oxygen from the lungs to the body. Next to them you see many gray cells. They are still red blood cells, even though they are no longer red, because they are no longer able to carry oxygen, and since there is enough oxygen in the air, we see the inability of hemoglobin to bind oxygen in these cells. And they stay like this, we watched them for long, long minutes, they didn’t change back. The second image – we’re going to see the exact same thing, this is another patient with Moderna, once it was added to the blood, you see the same phenomenon, and finally, the third image is from Johnson’s vaccine, with the same phenomenon, with the loss of the hemoglobin’s ability to hold oxygen, as seen on the gray coloring of the cells, next to the bright red blood cells that have not been damaged by the vaccine and are still functioning. we see the inability of hemoglobin to bind oxygen in these cells. And they stay like this, we watched them for long, long minutes, they didn’t change back. The second image – we’re going to see the exact same thing, this is another patient with Moderna, once it was added to the blood, you see the same phenomenon, and finally, the third image is from Johnson’s vaccine, with the same phenomenon, with the loss of the hemoglobin’s ability to hold oxygen, as seen on the gray coloring of the cells, next to the bright red blood cells that have not been damaged by the vaccine and are still functioning. we see the inability of hemoglobin to bind oxygen in these cells. And they stay like this, we watched them for long, long minutes, they didn’t change back. The second image – we’re going to see the exact same thing, this is another patient with Moderna, once it was added to the blood, you see the same phenomenon, and finally, the third image is from Johnson’s vaccine, with the same phenomenon, with the loss of the hemoglobin’s ability to hold oxygen, as seen on the gray coloring of the cells, next to the bright red blood cells that have not been damaged by the vaccine and are still functioning.

X: We saw in those images that when we add the vaccine to the red blood cells, the red color disappears.

RF:The red color will disappear and will not return. And it’s not just by adding liquid. We also looked at the blood, where we added normal saline and that dilutes the blood a little, but the red coloration does not go away. All three of these vaccines—when we added them to the blood, the red color disappeared, which means that the hemoglobin is no longer able to carry oxygen. This could happen for various reasons – there would be no oxygen to carry. Well, there’s enough of it in the atmosphere, so that’s not it. So the hemoglobin molecule was damaged. Or the membrane of the red blood cell has been damaged. But in sickle cell anemia, the red blood cells are damaged, but they have no problem being red blood cells. So something has happened to the hemoglobin molecule and it won’t go back to its original state. We watched the blood for many minutes, it did not return to its original state. Furthermore, we observed that the blood starts to clump. And it’s not a matter of time because we’ve observed normal blood from the same individuals where we’ve added normal saline and the blood doesn’t clot. So it’s not a matter of time. It is not that the blood was collected in tubes that had solutions in them that would affect the red blood cells, because the blood was taken directly from the patients, it was not stored in the interim in any tube, there was no material that with he could react with it. So this is a phenomenon where a vaccine is added to the blood, the vaccine touches the red blood cells, the red blood cells turn pale, they are no longer red. Not only is the ability to carry oxygen important, but also the fact that the same hemoglobin that picks up oxygen in the lungs and carries it to the body, in the body takes carbon dioxide, a waste product, acid, and carries it back to the lungs. If hemoglobin is damaged and cannot carry oxygen, the same damage will likely prevent it from carrying carbon dioxide out of the body. Although nothing is more important for red blood cells than oxygen transport.

X: And what would be the consequence of this decrease in the ability of red blood cells to carry oxygen?

RF:Those (affected) red blood cells cannot carry oxygen in the body. The important question is how much this happens in the organism. And no amount of this vaccine, or any vaccine should not damage red blood cells. This is a matter at the tissue level. This should have been addressed at an early stage. Similar to animal studies. If you are going to deal with something, e.g. administering a drug to a patient, you need to know that the drug will work and you need to know what consequences the administration of the drug may have. The project is not difficult at all. You take vaccines, you take human blood, you add it, and if anyone can prove to me that what we’ve been watching over and over again is wrong, go ahead, prove me wrong. But you won’t, because the beauty of science is that we’ve done these experiments in more than one place on the planet,

X: Do you have a working theory or hypothesis as to why these vaccines cause this discoloration and clumping?

RF:Yes, I have. We have known for a long time that when RNA or DNA is outside the cell, it is a prion. Human red blood cells are the only human cells that do not have a nucleus. And they don’t have ribosomes. They only have hemoglobin to transport oxygen and carbon dioxide. Red blood cells cannot do anything with the genetic code that goes into them. The lipid nanoparticles would simply fuse with the red blood cells. If red blood cells behave like other parts of the body when they are outside the body, without a nucleus and ribosomes, when they come into contact with RNA or DNA, they will behave like a prion and change the protein structure. Hemoglobin is a protein. So it appears to us that these vaccines are releasing RNA or DNA from the vaccines into these red blood cells, causing a prion effect on the hemoglobin molecule, permanently altering the hemoglobin molecule, losing its shape and configuration,

X: Dr. Fleming, Do vaccines reprogram the innate immune system?

RF: We see that two of the critical steps in your immune system, ie the production of interferon, which is a substance that prevents virus replication, and helper lymphocytes 2, which are critical for antibody production, are both suppressed. Helper 2 lymphocytes are probably something most people haven’t heard of, it’s a type of T-cell, they’re helper and they have a no. 2 in sequence. They have three components that must be paired with B-cells that produce antibodies. Only when all three are paired is a signal sent to your antibody system, the so-called to the adaptive humoral antibody system, to produce antibodies of a specific type, against a specific infection, and to preserve the appropriate memory cells about it. In the event that these helper lymphocytes 2 are not produced as they should, despite the fact that this system exists, it will be blunted.

X: Based on everything you’ve stated, would it be possible to argue that these vaccines are a biological weapon in themselves?

RF:Since the spike protein is a virus developed through gain-of-function research, which by definition is a bioweapon, replicating the same genetic sequence and putting it into a vaccine, no matter how you introduce it into the human body, does not change the fact that it is still a biological weapon. At the moment, it is most alarming for children. When someone at the FDA meeting says we need to vaccinate children, but we don’t know what it will do to them until they are vaccinated. This is the experimental phase of the research project. Since 1947 I thought we were officially, although it was very clear from the Tuskeegee-Airmen and other studies, paid for by the US government, that our leaders seem to have no problem experimenting on our elderly fellow citizens, on our police officers, on our first responders, our doctors and nurses,


6th part

Action plan

X: If you had to advise the Texas health commissioner, for example, on how to defend against this attack, what would you recommend?

RF:I will go back to what I said before. If you do something in medicine, or in any other science, and the result is bad, then stop doing it. If one of my medical students came up and said, “Dr. Fleming, when we administered this medicine the last few times, it did not work, the patient’s condition worsened, but I would like to administer it again, because now it might work,” I would probably knock him out. After all, we will not repeat what causes problems. All the evidence confirms that there is no statistical advantage in using these vaccines. Mass vaccination caused the selection of variants under pressure. It caused significant side effects in people who were given the vaccines. The FDA admitted in the emergency approval documents for children that we won’t know what it will do to them until we do an experiment on them. It’s completely obvious. These vaccines did nothing to solve the problem. They must be stopped. Producers must be held legally accountable. We must answer the questions why all the codes and international treaties we claim to uphold are being violated. Gain-of-function research must be stopped until at least some control is in place and it is ensured that it is useful and not harmful to humanity. We need to hold the people responsible for this accountable. They violated the Biological Weapons Convention. They violated the Nuremberg Code. They violated the Convention on Civil and Political Rights. They violated the American Medical Association’s code of ethics, which is not necessarily criminal, but I thought we should practice medicine in a certain agreed-upon way. There will come a time when people will have to answer for what they have done. People make mistakes. I’m human too. You won’t have a problem finding someone who will confirm that I make mistakes too. I know I make mistakes too. I am my own worst critic in the field of science and medicine. Two decades of gain-of-function research focused on increasing the infectivity of this virus, with consequences that are clear worldwide. In In 2020 and 2021, we carried out measures that do not make any scientific sense. There is no data to confirm that quarantining people would stop the spread of the virus. If that were the case, please explain to me why in 2021 this virus is endemic. It didn’t stop him. Doctors stopped practicing medicine, for many reasons. Some may have really literally thought they were doing the right thing. Many did so because they were told there was no cure. And who told them? Federal government agencies? of the federal government, run by Fauci and Collins and other people, those bodies do not practice medicine. You don’t call them when you go to the hospital. Medicine is practiced by your doctor. This is the person you go to, who takes care of you. We prevented the practice of medicine. We prevented doctors who felt they could practice medicine. For doctors who haven’t bothered to measure the outcome of a treatment but have endorsed multiple drugs, I suggest they look at the quantifiable data to see if they work or not. But at least they’re putting in some effort, which is basically what we’ve always done before we found out what really works. I was there when HIV came. We had no idea what to do. So we tried. And we managed somehow. We treated the symptoms. If they were short of breath, we gave them respiratory treatment. In 2019 we stopped providing respiratory treatment to people who were gasping for breath, even though they were wheezing because there was no cure, right? Everything we’ve done in science and medicine has been thrown out the window. We kept people locked up, we put fear in people’s hearts. We told people not to believe anyone who told them otherwise. We have stopped questioning the scientific paradigm, while we constantly debate in science. All those who think that scientists and doctors are a nice, cheerful bunch of people who always agree with each other. No, the scientific debate is ongoing. Doctors often argue with each other about what should or should not be done. That is a free exchange of ideas that was not. Texas, the Texas Medical Society, the health authorities, the governor, the attorney general, everyone should be looking into why this happened to make sure that the people of Texas are taken care of and that other people in the US have the opportunity to follow suit.


This entry was posted in Main, Tinfoil Hat. Bookmark the permalink.