Showing posts with label Dr. Richard Fleming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dr. Richard Fleming. Show all posts

Thursday, January 19, 2023

The evidence will demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 meets the definition of a BioWeapon and the development of this BioWeapon is a violation of U.S. Criminal Law

If you possibly can, watch this video.  It is of Dr. Richard Fleming, the one scientist who is taking the fight against COVID criminals to the criminal courts.  He is accompanied by two guests from India who are part of his team that is amassing evidence, getting affidavits and filtering out friend from foe, the latter of which are prominent names trying to sabotage his case.  But he is persevering.  As are his allies.  

When I first found Dr. Fleming, I was stunned by his clarity of expression and the clarity of his logic.  On these counts, he is relentless.  Here is what he is doing: 

First, addressing the Criminal alteration of naturally occurring viral pathogens to make a chimeric virus (SARS-CoV-2) capable of infecting humans. Once infected these viruses are then able to transmit by respiratory and gastrointestinal pathways. Left untreated, as the evidence will demonstrate, these viruses can kill people (COVID-19) by producing Inflammation and Blood Clotting (InflammoThrombotic Response; ITR). This untreated ITR is responsible for the death of more than 556,000 Americans with more than 30 million infected. 

The evidence will demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 meets the definition of a BioWeapon and the development of this BioWeapon is a violation of U.S. Criminal Law responsible for the deaths of these Americans; as well as violations of the Biological Weapons Convention, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics, and the 1947 Nuremberg Code. The evidence will show that the above-named defendants are responsible for the funding and development of this BioWeapon, they have interfered with the treatment of individuals infected with this BioWeapon, they have promulgated the use of experimental drug vaccines that (a) exacerbate the ITR in individuals otherwise not adversely affected by the virus itself, and (b) use a drug technology that has repeatedly failed to successfully treat disease but has successfully been used to introduce altered genetic material into the human nucleus of cells. The evidence will show that this interference of t 

Then check out his list of facts surrounding the whole COVID and vaccine disaster.  His book is titled, Is COVID-19 a Bioweapon: A Scientific and Forensics Investigation, Dr. Richard Fleming, 2021.

Thursday, January 5, 2023

"But it's even clearer that what [Shi Zhengli] was going for was the development of a prion disease . . . the ability to produce prion diseases is quite a weapon."


3 things to look at: 

1.  There is what's known as the HIV glycoprotein 120, which is a part of the HIV virus.  We have the papers that show that Shi Zhengli intentionally inserted that into the spike protein to make the coronavirus infective. 

2.  There's also something known as a PRRA insert, and so those 4 amino acids, in which there are 3 nucleotide bases which are the genetic code for them for each one.  That's 12.  That insert is called a Furin insert and no other coronavirus on the planet has that.  That insert is critical to make this spike protein infective in people, and the U.S. government just happens to own the patent for it. 

Not only is the Glycoprotein 120 a prion.  A prion is something that when it comes into your body it changes your proteins so that they become abnormal. And classic diseases that people are aware of are Mad Cow Disease and Alzheimer's Disease.  And those ate because of prions.  And turns out that not only is the Glycoprotein 120 a prion, but very much like a box when you step on it you will change the rest of the box, when the PRAA inserts and the Glycoprotein 120 are inserted in the spike protein, they change the shape of the spike protein compared to the shape of the other coronaviruses.  And it turns out that that spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 is a prion. You can find the grants that paid for the research that led to this happening.  One of the patents is for the expressed purpose of altering, changing, and genetically changing the spike protein on coronaviruses.  Now I don't know how much clearer you have to get than PATENT > FEDERAL FUNDING > GENETICALLY CHANGING SPIKE PROTEIN OF THE CORONAVIRUSES?  I mean, I'm sorry, I'm just dumbfounded by the fact that we don't already have these guys in prison, but we're going to get there. 

Find the extended interview of Dr. Richard Fleming here

you find this PRRA insert. 

Now this genetic code for the furin insert, the PRRA, is that found in any other coronavirus in nature?

None. 

It's not found in any other coronavirus that exists in the wild?

Right, there's no other coronavirus that has this PRRA insert, so that's 12 nucleotide bases.  Not a single base, like sickle-cell, but 12 specific nucleotide bases to provide for 4 amino acids that very specifically is connected with the Furin cleavage site, see 3:10, which the U.S. government owns the patent on. This site is exclusive to SARS-CoV-2.  

Since mutations occur one nucleotide bases at a time, you would have to come up with some phenomenal explanation as to why 12 bases suddenly inserted themselves into a virus than none other viruses in that category have.  The original premise that was put forward, and actually published in the Lancet, was that this was a naturally occuring virus and an animal host that got transmitted to people.  But yet there's not been a single animal model associated with this, neither has there been a single coronavirus that has this PRRA insert.     

You mentioned a second insert, an HIV glycoprotein 120.  So are you saying that sections of the genetic code for HIV were inserted into the SARS-Co-V2 virus?  

Right.  Yeah, Shi Zhengli published this early on many years ago where she was very proud of the fact that she did this.  She used an HIV pseudovirus to do it.  We also know that HIV glycoprotein is a prion.  

So this is the HIV that became famous in the 1980s and 1990s?

Yep. 

And somebody took genetic pieces of HIV and inserted it into SARS-CoV-2?  That's what Shi Zhengli admitted to in publications that she had, yes.  

Were you able to discover why that was done? 

According to papers she published it was to increase the infectivity--to see if she could make it more infective.  But it's even clearer that what she was going for was the development of a prion disease, because where everybody is coming up to speed with a virus and how challenging it could be to deal with.  What's even more challenging to deal with are prions.  Because prion diseases are relatively new in our understanding of treatment, and they cause permanent damage unless they can be reversed.  And so the development of a prion, putting HIV glycoprotein 120 in there, attaching to the alicyclic receptor, there's nothing about that that's advantageous for people.  And the ability to produce prion diseases is quite a weapon.  

And how lethal are prion diseases? 

Ah, people die from prion diseases. 

Is this process of inserting amino acids to increase infectivity, is that gain of function, or GoF?

Right, so Gain of Function is anything that you do that changes a naturally-occurring biological agent like this virus.  So the premise of gain of function really has a good premise behind it.  The original idea is that if you could stay a step ahead of a potentially infectious agent, say, a coronavirus.  If you could stay a step ahead, you could do a good job of providing treatments for people and knowing when and where it was going to spread.  This isn't a step ahead.  This isn't a single type nucleotide based.  This is a spike protein that has an HIV glycoprotein 120 inserted into it.  This is a spike protein that has 4 amino acids to make a furin cleavage site, the PRRA insert.  This is a spike protein that has multiple other, according to Luc Montagnier, HIV and SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency virus] inserts.  This is not something that evolutionarily evolved.  The evolution of something with this many changes would take hundreds or thousands of years.  This is not staying a step ahead of it.  And making this provided no advantage for human beings, which makes it a biological weapon's treaty violation.  This is playing God.

To your knowledge, has anyone been able to disprove or refute the fact that there are artificial, man-made insertions into the SARS-CoV-2 virus?

Actually, there's no dispute of that other than the statement that it's naturally occurring, and when you say, where's the scientific evidence that it's naturally occurring, there's no follow-up to that.  So for the people who are claiming that this is a scientific discussion, I would encourage them to stay with the fact that this is a scientific discussion.  There's no science to show that any other coronavirus on the planet has these inserts.  There's no science to show that there's a natural reservoir in animals for this virus to occur.  In fact, science points to the fact with over 99% probability which is what we're dealing with until somebody comes up and confesses, that this is not naturally occurring.  

14:45  In your mind is there any doubt that without this gain of function manipulation of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, there would have been no pandemic?

We wouldn't have had this had this virus been released.  

Have any of these folks--Daszak, Baric, Shi Zhengli, Fauci explained what that alleged effect is? 

Well up until now, most of their conversation has been "We didn't do anything like that" even though the data is now showing it.  But as we've learned over the last couple of months, the National Institutes of Health and National Institutes of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, NIAID, have now admitted, not that they needed to but it's nice for them to have admitted, that a gain of function research was funded by the U.S. and that Fauci's statements that they weren't involved with gain of function research were not correct. 

PART 2: THE COVER-UP

15:42  Dr. Fauci testified under oath in Congress under questioning by Senator Rand Paul that the NIH and NIAID had not funded gain of function research.  Was that statement truthful? Well as we've shown and as we've talked about, that . . . was a lie. 

And that lie can be proven by publically available documents? 

Dr. Fauci denied under oath that they provided any Gain of Function research despite the fact that we have a long track record of gain of function research.  In fact, that gain of function research even occurred during a time that it was shut down during the Clinton Administration due to concerns by scientists like myself that saw infections getting out due to gain of function research.  That money still got funneled around, primarily through Peter Daszak, Baric, Shi Zhengli., and other sources and they're denying that they're connected to each other, which just completely goes against publications, published papers, where both of their names, Baric's and Shi Zhengli's, are on there.  You can find publications with NIH funding.     

 

The more I read of about SARS-CoV-2, about COVID, about the COVID vaccines, which aren't vaccines at all but genetic sequences injected to modify the human genome in real time to simply incapacitate a population or the servicemen of any armed forces.  Then I read this

By 1999, US Federal Agencies began funding Gain-of-Function research. Research that by its very nature is designed to increase the ability of pathogens to infect and harm people. In 2019, one of those pathogens was intentionally released upon the world in the Wuhan Wet Market. The key to proving and understanding this bioweapon is its spike protein. The very same spike protein now being made in millions of people after the COVID vaccines are injected into them. These vaccines are nothing more than the genetic code of this bioweapon. This book traces the publication and money trail of COVID-19; showing who is ultimately criminally responsible for the design and development of this weapon, which violates the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) Treaty, exposing those who have committed crimes against humanity. Dr. Fleming will reveal the ultimate conspiracy: one that puts the future of the entire world at stake.

Saturday, March 19, 2022

FAUCI'S EMAILS & BOTH THE FDA & HHS KNEW ABOUT SHEDDING - DR. RICHARD FLEMING


"The virus inconsistent with evolutionary theory."  In other words, this is not naturally evolving.  Meaning it's man-made inside one of Fauci-funded, NIH [meaning American-tax-funded laboratories].  Good to know that the FDA and HHS [the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] both knew that viral shedding from the vaccines existed.  In fact, they knew this back in 2015.  It is just amazing how every single one of the government agencies involved in health are out to kill Americans.  Huh.  

If you're looking for the best information on COVID-19 or COVID-19 vaccines, spike proteins, the legal and practical approach to Fauci's fraud is to read Dr. Richard Fleming.  He is one of the most ethical doctors I've heard yet on the internet.  

What's interesting is that at the 4:41 mark is that Fleming cites the work done by Luc Montagne, pointing out that Montagne discovered the HIV gene sequences in the SARS-CoV-2 virus.  So there are genetic splices into that virus, making it more infectious and more lethal that in effect can turn the body's immune system on so that it attacks its tissue, like multiple sclerosis.  

 

Friday, March 18, 2022

DR. MCCULLOUGH GOT $4.5 MILLION FROM BIG PHARMA OVER 7 YEARS. CONFLICT OF INTEREST MUCH?

He wants to prosecute Malone and McCullough for their conflicts of interest.  

My overall goal right now is to indict these people and we're making very good progress on that.  But as I focus, my number one priority is to get these indictments; plus, the crimes against humanity tour coming up and that's integrated into these indictments.  

Been getting all these questions, and needed to do a presentation.  I just did a presentation in New Orleans at the IAOMT . . . , I forget the name, but it was a Dental Group.  Everybody there was given a card to read for conflicts of interest.  When we signed up for this, we had to fill out a form, "Do you have conflicts of interest?"  Most speakers got up there and read their cards, but my slides have my conflicts of interest right on the first slide.  I want you to know . . .  you can take a picture of it, I don't care.  If you know that I'm connected to certain things, then you can in your own mind, say, "As I listen to Fleming, I need to take this into consideration."  If you don't, then that's on you, but at least I'm not hiding anything from you.  [9:37] The only person who didn't do that was McCullough.  And then he came out and made comments about that he had just been booted off his faculty position that morning.  Peter, no you hadn't because that happened months and months ago.  So that's right up frank . . . you didn't have to make that statement.  That's a lie.  You can say, "I have suffered the consequence . . . ," yeah, go for that, good.  But don't lie to the people and then do not make a conflict of interest statement.  [10:15]  I'm not saying that McCullough because he's gotten $4.5 million dollars in 7 years from big pharma that he is compromised.  I'm stating that you have to tell people that.  Doesn't that make it much cleaner when you got, "I got $4.5 million from big pharma.  Now I think I deserved that.  I think I did legitimate work.  But if you think that it clouds my perspective, go for that."  A good friend of mine, Bob Eckel, was American Heart Association, and you only get to be president for one year, and there's president-elect, current presidents, past presidents.  So there's a training that goes on.  Bob had some people who attacked him and said, "Bob, you cannot be president of American Heart Association because you're a Christian."  And Bob turned around and said, "Look, if you can show me anything in my published research that shows me that I am compromised in what I am presenting, I won't become president of American Heart . . . ."  Bob's wife [Liz Elting] is the lady who started Go Red for Women.  She loved this red outfit, she wore it, it popped, and it became international "Go Red for Women."  Bob is completely above board, completely ethical, he's an endocrinologist.  We've talked many times.  We've been on different committees and panels together with hypolipidemia and heart disease . . . he's very ethical, and Bob simply came back to them and said, "Hey, if you think that's a problem, you show me where it's a problem."  No evidence!  Right?  But he was simply upfront and said, "Well, prove it to me."  It's the fact that given that . . . and this wasn't me, there were other people that brought this to my attention.  Well, look, you can punch in any of us . . . if you're an MD [allopathic], a DO [osteopathic], or a DS [dentist], you can punch that number in there and you can see what Big Pharma has paid people. [12:20]  You've got to declare that.  In some of the videos that I showed, McCullough says he is going to incorporate Paxlovid [a Pfizer product] into his treatment regimen.  One of the behind-the-scenes emails that I got, was text messages, "Peter, he does not prescribe Paxlovid and knows it will never be mainstream."  That was somebody at the presentation who walked out of the presentation that I was giving on those 18 points.  

He does not promote Novavax.  We had a long conversation about it.  In order to reach a vast number of people and to prevent them from taking mRNA, he chose to use Novavax as an excuse to wait, knowing it will never hit the U.S. market by the time people learn . . . he knew that . . . none of them work and would avoid a vaccine for COVID-19 altogether.  We truly need to speak.

He's accusing me of going after the wrong people.  I'm not going after anybody.  I'm just presenting the data.  

If you had questions about these things, we could easily have a discussion about them, showing you why this strategy was chosen.  We've got comments that were sent to me on Dr. Robert Malone . . . .  I put the screws to Malone [Robert Malone] about his consultation of Covaxin.  He reviewed the data and deemed it was as a vaccine program was abandoned. 

Well, no, it wasn't.  No, it wasn't.  

And Malone's comments were, one, I was a consultant to Reliance.  Two, whoever wrote this is going into defamation and knows nothing about this product.  

Well, all I did was show the video that he talked about.

Three, this product has not even begun Phase I Clinical Trials.

Hmm.  Not right.  

Four, it is a straight-forward subunit vaccine candidate that I've seen with a traditional adjuvant.  Five, a presentation regarding a vaccine's characteristics is readily available.  Six, this product was designed as a very low-cost alternative.  Seven, my presentation [this is Robert Malone] my presentation regarding this product for Reliance can be found here. 

And it's the same darned video that I showed people and provided the link to under the "18 Points."