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."
