So Richard, we've got people from all around the world.
We've got doctors, retired doctors, lawyers, legal strategists like me based in Australia,
journalists, dentists, philosophers, investigative journalists like James.
James, I listened to your presentation to Health Alliance Australia that I had a part in creating
from Czech Republic, Doc Heiko from Finland, Norway, gosh Norway, how could I mix those two up?
Ariana Love, Simon, Belgium, Ralph from US, so lots of eclectic, everybody on the side of truth,
nobody on the side of government in relation to this nonsense going on.
So welcome, everybody approach, our events go for two and a half hours.
I'm wearing my passion red jacket because we're all passionate about freedom and truth and justice
and bring the buggers to account.
So Richard, as Steven would have told you, we're happy for you to speak as long as you want
and then hopefully you're good for questions, Q&A, and then everybody else for Q&A,
we use the reactions tab and I moderate those in order of your hand going up,
but don't rush to put your hand up until, Richard, Richard, what sort of timeframe are you going to be speaking to us
before we get to questions so that we can, it's up to you how long you speak.
Right, so I really didn't have any predetermined amount of time.
I've been doing a lot of obviously investigation behind the scenes with different research projects that we're doing,
including the Crimes Against Humanity Tour that's going on in the United States right now that may get Canada and Australia and Europe over the course of time.
Those presentations are about two hours long, a little bit more than that, simply to try to provide people with the information that I think they need to have to get a really good grasp on SARS-CoV-2
and SARS-CoV-19, if you will. So I really didn't put together something predetermined on this as much as wanted to make sure that I kind of give you a general overlay of what we're doing and then open that up to Q&A.
And people here are very well, everyone, most people have been here, many meetings with many experts are well informed on the basic issues.
And then it's your genius and insights. So it's a bit, you can make that assumption that the basics are well known by the people that are here.
All right, well, fantastic. So let me give you, I guess, a little bit of background about myself. I'm a physicist, nuclear cardiologist.
Before you do, Stephen, is there anything you want to say before Richard starts? And as Theresa says, we're wide awake, Richard. So this is awake. That's right. Very good, Theresa. This is a wide awake group.
Stephen, is there anything you want to say?
No, Charles, I was sorry I was muted. I was just going to say, I think Richard has a very wide view of this whole problem.
But I think, Richard, what you specialize in, as far as I can understand, is bringing these people to account, the people responsible and complicit in what's gone on.
And so we'd be very interested in that and your ideas about crimes against humanity, human medical experimentation in times of a medical political alliance, if you think that that is what is occurring now.
And how we bring this to the attention of the police when they are part of the mass formation, mass hypnosis.
And I don't know whether you have, if you have any ideas on messaging to psychologically tortured populations around the world, we'd be very interested in that too. There's a lot of stuff.
Sure, sure. So as I had just kind of started, I am a physicist. I got my doctorate in particle physics. We didn't have particle physics in those days.
Back in 1974, shortly after completing high school, I am a nuclear cardiologist attorney. I also have a master's degree in psychology. I actually trained with Gordon Harrington from Harvard University, one of the top four H's, Harlow had passed in Harrington out of Harvard University, which has quite a bit of knowledge base.
As far as how to get people to behave in the way that you want them to behave between Harvard and the University of Iowa, much of that research was done from the 1940s onward.
The, you know, we have a very interesting scenario that I think, depending upon where somebody catches into the actual story, either appears to be something new, or you recognize that this is a process that has been going on for some period of time.
From the scientific point of view, at least from the gain of function point of view, this has been going on for at least a couple decades. We know that the research has been going on.
One of the interesting hypotheses that I'm going to present this coming weekend for the Tampa Crimes Against Humanity Tour is a kind of a what if scenario. So to do that, I'm pulling back on my knowledge of this virus and the people who developed it and asking what I think is a very fundamental question.
The premise that SARS-CoV-2 is a single virus is a premise that people have kind of bought into from the perspective that we've been told it's a single virus.
But we know that the research that was paid for by NIH and Department of Defense and NIAID and a variety of other entities produced a variety of gain of function biological agents over the years, many of which match the PCR for SARS-CoV-2.
And PCR has taken something of a bad rap, not because it's a bad test, but because people that have been applying it for different reasons haven't really understood how to apply it. And that's on them, but it doesn't detract from the value of PCR.
So the PCR testing itself shows that actually Barrick's, I guess I've got them written down here, Barrick's, RS-SHCO-0114-MA15 along with just the simple SARS-CoV-MA15 and the SARS-CoV-RS-3367 along with a couple of others have exact PCR fingerprinting that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has.
So if you take it from a simplistic perspective, you have gain of function research going on in a laboratory, and you have certain mechanisms designed to prevent any escape of those organisms.
If you believe that an organism escapes from the lab, why should you believe that only one virus, one gain of function virus escaped?
And I think it's illogical to presume that only one virus escaped. The same air filtration system and incineration system that's critical to protecting Wuhan as a level four lab or the other level four labs are going to equally fail for all the viruses that are there.
So there is a lot of questions that are actually in my mind right now. And as I said, I'm going to bring this out this weekend and the Crimes Against Humanity Tour is that I think that what we're dealing with is not a single virus, but multiple viruses that explain why the vaccine program that has put a pressure selection on the virus to produce the variant that we now see 28 variants, which is pretty amazing considering that this is only been a few years.
So if you take it from the perspective that there may have been more than one gain of function coronavirus produced that escaped at the same time, you can see that not only would you expect to see the the variance occurring, but you would also expect those parents to be able to recombine with each other.
And if you go back to the information that we know about Wuhan back in September of 2019, and the war games are being played, the people who went over there to participate noticed some very strange things they noticed in September, October that the streets of Wuhan appeared abandoned.
They noticed that when they got off the jet, they were temperature checked, and they were told to constantly wash their hands. So this is in September, October of 2019. We know that the people at the Wuhan lab itself were being hospitalized for the same type of disease that is called COVID.
Now COVID is not unique to this virus. COVID is, as many of you may have already heard me say back in 1994 when I developed the Inflammable Thrombotic Response Theory to explain heart disease, is viruses and bacteria are part of this inflammatory disease process that results in heart disease,
cerebral vascular disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, cancers, all these diseases. So the fact that we're seeing coronavirus disease, which is an inflammatory thrombotic disease on the heels of infections that are coming out with gain of function viruses is not a surprise.
But these are the same symptoms that these people, the lab techs from Wuhan, for example, were being hospitalized in Chinese hospitals in Wuhan in September and October of 2019, about the same time that they were wiping the data bank from the file of which I have about a third of that data bank, fortunately.
So that's an advantage for us. The reality, however, is I think that because this theoretically was an accidental leak, that I think what happened is it kind of threw them off base.
I think they found themselves needing to look at the scenario that was playing out. And, you know, as Churchill said, never let a disaster pass by, you know, always take advantage of it. And while I think they had plans to control the narrative, I think it got away from them.
And I think that what the emails show us and what the depositions of Anthony Fauci and others show us are people that are stressed. And people that are in power at the top of the food pyramid, if you will, don't tend to get stressed unless something happens that got out of their control.
And they now are dealing with a new narrative that they weren't expecting to deal with. So their evidence is very clear that there's been gain of function research going on for some time, not just by the United States, but a number of other countries that the US is heavily invested in that.
It's a violation of the Biological Weapons Convention Treaty. It's a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It's a violation of Nuremberg, which some people have said is not a treaty.
However, fortunately, due to Jennifer Bridges' lawsuit that was filed rather poorly in the Southern Federal District of Texas, the judge, I think it's Lynn Hughes' name, actually said that Nuremberg didn't apply to Houston, to Methodist Hospital, because it's not a government.
So what happened with that is a federal judge in the United States made a declaration that Nuremberg applies to government, which is rather interesting.
I don't think he meant to do that, but he did it nonetheless, and now it's on the record. And it would require an appellate court to actually overturn that.
My goal, having dug into this virus and its origin, is clearly what's happened in the United States, and I can't speak for other countries. I can speak to what I see in other countries, and people I've communicated with, both scientists and physicians and attorneys and some patients, but not knowing the constitutions of the different countries, I can't speak to that like I can to the Constitution of the United States.
What has happened is a number of individuals usurping power that they don't have. And I guess I should say with a caveat, they don't have it, but they do have it.
And by that I mean, the Executive Branch of the United States cannot issue certain mandates. However, the Supreme Court has ruled consistently that if in the balance of power, the Congress, Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, if the Congress does not rein in the Executive Branch and say you do not have that authority, then by definition the Executive Branch has been granted that authority by Congress.
And so that's a problem, because that's a Supreme Court ruling that the Executive Branch can do what it wants if Congress doesn't rein it in. The founding fathers said they should rein it in.
But we've seen all sorts of people taking advantage in powers that be and positions that be from the consequence of a viral infection being spread. And I would say congratulations. What we've done is spend a tremendous amount of money to show that a respiratory pathogen is spread respiratory-ally.
The 2007 National Science Foundation study was very clear when that was set out with Italy and France and Indiana University that if you think you have a legitimate pandemic, you have to shut down international travel.
I know from the nucleotide-based sequencing that I lived in Los Angeles for seven and a half years before coming here to Dallas about a year and a half ago, that the cases of SARS-CoV-2 that were showing up in Los Angeles did not come over from Wuhan.
They came from Italy, and they came from Italians that were the Chinese that visited, holidayed to Italy. And then Americans from LA and other parts of the country went to Italy to ski. I like downhill skiing, so I understand that.
But they brought that back and shared that with other people in the country. So we know that this pathogen spreads quite well from person to person.
I can, rather than, I think, just continuing on on that case, if there's specific questions that somebody has, I'm happy to address those. But what we clearly have is again a function, probably more than one, viral agent, to respond to you, Stefan.
That has spread around the United States. Federal authorities have usurped power that they don't have. They really have not been very successful at this. I mean, the vaccines were focused supposedly, and I say supposedly because I have some questions about this, on developing antibodies to the original Wuhan-HU1 variant.
As the variants are more different than Wuhan-HU1 spike protein, those vaccination efforts are less and less successful, and consequently are helping to produce the pressure selection.
You know, I guess while I'm thinking about it, there's several issues that I come up with that I really have questions about. You know, some of the people in their understanding of a variety of components of this.
One is asymptomatic spreader. I don't know the group, so I don't know what your perspectives are, but I'll give you mine. Everybody on planet Earth at some point in time is an asymptomatic spreader. That's just immunology 101 between the time that you get an infectious agent and you develop a T cell response, which is typically what produces your symptoms, your rataria, your cephalazias, your elevated temperature, all of that.
You are an asymptomatic carrier, and it takes that T cell response to actually produce the symptoms that you become, quote, symptomatic. So for anybody who gets exposed for a period of time, they are an asymptomatic carrier. Obviously, if you're coughing and sneezing, you're spreading more. However, you can talk to people, you can spread it.
There were some studies that were done that actually showed that the best way to reduce the spread of a virus from somebody talking to you was if you were talking back. It turns out that the more you talk back, the more that airflow went the other direction and it prevented the transmission of the virus. So much more effective than donning a mask.
But, you know, in and by itself, it certainly can spread that way.
The Wuhan study that people like to quote that says that there is no such thing as asymptomatic carriers actually doesn't show that it shows the opposite. It shows 300 asymptomatic carriers. And interestingly enough, the paper shows that the asymptomatic carriers are where the infections are, which makes sense because why would you see asymptomatic carriers in an area where there weren't infections? So they did a nice mapping of that.
We expect respiratory pathogens to be passed back and forth respiratory, whether it's a man-made function virus or not.
So, you know, that transmission helps to understand why the numbers I think have been confusing about vaccinated versus unvaccinated people and hospitalizations. And I try to look at as a physicist, particularly since that's my original area, I try to think of things very simplistically in my brain and try to find out why what I'm observing should be explained if what I'm observing is correct.
So if the observations are correct that initially it was the unvaccinated that ended up getting more ill and being diagnosed with COVID.
And now we're seeing the opposite, that it is the vaccinated that are getting more ill and being diagnosed with COVID. That can very simply be explained by understanding asymptomatic carriers.
So if you look at the upfront part, while statistically there is no reduction in COVID cases or deaths of vaccinated versus unvaccinated, there is a slight difference, not statistically, but there's still a difference.
And so what you would expect with a virus being transmitted back and forth with multiple variants, because they don't come in just one flavor anymore than human beings, there's, you know, 30 or 40 different variants of humans here and yet they're all humans.
I think the reality is there would be a slight advantage for the people who get vaccinated when the vast majority of the variant was Wuhan-HU1.
So they had a slight edge. They had a slight advantage. However, what that meant was that their immune response was to Wuhan-HU1 and it selected out the alpha initially and then beta variants.
And then they passed that as asymptomatic spreaders to the general population. Now that we see about 65% of the US population having been exposed, and I've had it twice.
I had it first with Wuhan-HU1 in January 2020 and then Delta is somebody who was kind enough to share with me last year in the summer. And, you know, I survived both of those despite my age.
Now what we see are people that have been exposed to a wide variety of the variants and they've been exposed to the spike protein, the nucleocapsid, which turns out by the data to be that which we make our best immune response to, and a variety of the other structural protein.
So there is now an advantage for people who have been exposed by person-to-person contact over the people who have simply been vaccinated and have been trying to coister themselves away from the general population.
So now the immune advantage weighs to the people that have had the time to see multiple variants and multiple parts of the virus.
So, you know, when we look at it from that perspective, we see, I think, a very clear pathway to explain the numbers that are being reported by people.
And I think it's not a surprise with a little background in infectious disease that this is what we would say. So with that, I will be quiet and just kind of wait for any questions somebody might have.
Okay, so Richard, the process that we use here is that Stephen is the founder of this group.
He asks the first questions for other people. Put your hands up using the reactions tab down below.
And while we're waiting for Stephen to come back, he's obviously going to get a cup of coffee.
I'm sorry, I'm here.
So I think Theresa has a question that she wanted to ask. I saw in the chat.
Yes, we'll get to that Stephen and Theresa will be first after you, but we can't change tradition. You're first.
Oh, yes. Okay. Well, I was thinking, so Richard, I just had to answer the door. That's why I went away.
And I was just wondering about the Nuremberg Code. You mentioned that case and you said that, was it a Texas court, a judge had concluded another case by saying, slipping in, that it didn't apply because
Well, she ended up saying virtually that the Nuremberg Code applied to governments. Is that right? It didn't apply.
Right. Right. That's correct. And what we're trying to do, and I realize they didn't get to one of your key points, but what we're trying to do here in this country is to what I'm trying to do.
And now with the help of other folks that have kind of joined this tour is to get our state attorney general to convene grand juries, legitimate grand juries based upon evidence that I and others have collected over these last two years, showing the violations of the biological weapons convention treaty, the international covenant on civil and political rights treaty, the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of El Sincke.
There are US statutes that match that. We realize that the federal government right now is not going to take that on. However, Amendment 10 of the US Constitution provides that anything not specifically provided to the control of the federal government falls to the people and to the states.
And when I get on my JD hat and start lecturing to students, I frequently tell them that as a citizen, if you do not have a power, you cannot grant it to the state. The state cannot grant it to the federal government.
So therefore you don't have the power to mandate to somebody else that they must socially distance themselves. You do not have the power to mandate that somebody else must put on a mask.
Cruzen v Missouri, which is the Supreme Court case held that a US citizen cannot be required to take a treatment that they do not want. So for all those reasons, we have
have treaty laws that have been violated. And under Article 6 of the US Constitution, treaty laws are the supreme law of the land. Once the president has signed it and Congress has ratified it in the absence of so and for treaties, there's declarations, reservations and understanding declarations.
The Supreme Court has declared have no impact on the treaty. But if Congress signs the treaty ratified the treaty and then have places reservations or understandings on it, like they did with the WHO agreement, then that treaty is limited and bound by that.
So they have violated those treaties and so therefore they have violated federal law under the state laws. What we're asking the state attorney generals to do is to be convened a grand jury because we have enough evidence to show that these have been violated, which has a state level equals the crimes of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, reckless manslaughter, false endangerment, false imprisonment, coercion, assault, battery and murder.
And then perjury and I thought about it, I'd probably come up with a few more. So the nice thing about what this judge did was was pave the path for anybody who had any questions, because that was one of the criticisms. It's not a treaty, Nuremberg's not a treaty.
No, but the US participated in it internationally and declared that this was binding. So okay, thank you, federal judge, because even though that was kind of a blow for Jennifer and I knew it would be the way it was filed, it was I mean, it was filed to fail.
And we're working with her to help her address that by coming, you have to come up with something that wasn't put in the original case and do it intelligently. Otherwise, you know, it's going to be rude, you had your day in court, you can't do it again.
So we're working on that with her. But the beautiful thing out of that was that judge was so kind as to pontificate as they frequently do to explain that they're in charge, that they said, yes, Nuremberg is a violation. If you're the federal government, it's a violation of Nuremberg. Thank you, Judge Hughes.
Brilliant.
Yeah.
That's fine, Charles.
Well, yeah, the great, great, great thing about being an attorney is to just put somebody on a stand and just say nothing, they'll fill in the blank. And in this instance, the judge felt compelled to fill in the blank. So thanks, Judge.
Yes. Do you think she realized what she was doing, Richard?
He did not.
Sorry.
Yeah, no, that was my mistake, too. I said, Lynn, I thought, yeah, okay. And then it's no, it's an it's an elderly. Yeah, thanks.
Judge.
And Richard raises a very good point, Richard. I was a lawyer for 20 years now I'm a legal strategist for a long time.
And it's it's a good point you make that the case can lose but still be very useful. So that's an excellent example. And secondly, the case can lose because it was badly put together, not because principles of, you know, so, so that's important for everyone to understand.
So the the way that it's structured. So, okay, Stephen, thank you for that question. Teresa, who you look like you're still hiking through Wales, Teresa. So Richard, Teresa's first question to next question to you.
Hi, thanks, Charles. Thanks, Richard. I'm a big fan of your work. Keep it up.
Depending on you.
I get lots of criticism. There's always plenty when somebody says they're bad.
No, I've I followed what you've been saying from the very start. You make a lot of sense. I do have a couple of queries. So if it's permitted, I'd like to ask two questions.
Sure.
First of all, I'd like to ask, what makes you so confident that it was an accidental release because to me, it looks like it was a deliberate release.
The virus, the whole purpose of it was to scare us into taking the vaccine. And when the virus went soft on them and mutated in such a way that it wasn't so deadly.
I think they resorted to vaccine mandates to force us to take the vaccine. I think it's all about the vaccine. I don't think that they want control over 8 billion useless eaters. I think they want us all to take the vaccine.
A lot of us in this group believe it's a depopulation agenda. So what makes you confident that it was an accidental release.
So I think about it from a military game perspective and how people react. So being a Kennedy kid, which I don't know if that's the phrase that you've heard me use before, but a phrase we gave ourselves that felt more comfortable than the phrase that was being given to us.
Part of what we did growing up was to run these 201 scenarios that all of you have heard about, but we did them on a weekly basis.
And you can get pretty good at reading the response of people over time, particularly if you watch their behaviors over time.
And so watching Anthony Fauci's behaviors over time, he typically has, and I've had the opportunity to watch him since I was a medical student when HIV hit the scene.
He typically has a pretty well controlled deminere that doesn't look flustered.
But if something happens to a person in charge and it's outside of their control, you start to see a flustered appearance.
And the emails that started bouncing back and forth between Fauci and others and the way in which he behaves when he's questioned is consistent with somebody who doesn't have control.
And so had it been released intentionally, they would have had control over the scenario.
And they wouldn't have had empty streets when the war games were going on. It wouldn't have something so obvious, so blatant to point out.
They wouldn't have had personnel showing up in the hospital that would have been covered.
They would not have wanted that to have been seen. And then when you watch the, I don't want to say stress, but when you watch the behavior of Anthony Fauci and some of the others as they try to respond to this, they respond like a human being who thought they were in charge of something and it got away from them.
And now they're struggling to get it back under control. So I use that behavior that was exhibited.
And the other tale, which again, I could be completely nuts. I mean, there's people that would argue that.
I mean, I don't think the pressure selection from the vaccines alone with a single type of virus would have produced 28 variants.
But if you have three or two, you get some combination that is able to on its own do recombinant engineering, if you will, from person to person.
Now you can start to multiply the number of variants you see and 28 variants for me. I mean, you know, six omicron, three delta, you know, I mean, everybody's learned the Greek alphabet, just not how to actually spell a word with it.
Now you get a reason to think, yeah, there could be, there could be 28 if that type of thing happens. So can I prove that? No, I mean, the way that I would prove that is to be able to get in there and actually get those insiders.
You know, we do have somebody from EcoHealth that is going to be sounds like is going to be joining the tour has asked you an insider that was actively involved in helping to write the grant.
So we know that those monies are going for a variety of gain of function viruses. And I don't think they intentionally leaked it. They behave like people, you know, obviously, I think the plan was at some point in time, but it got away from them.
And that has caused some blundering on their part and their behavior shows it. So if you if you look at the temporal proximity of the the release, the circulation of SARS-CoV-2, the Wuhan strain and what was going on in the UK at the time, which was the point of no return for Brexit.
You'll see that pretty much we I think we had one of our first cases in the UK in November, which was the date at which they said that Brexit was going to go ahead.
Now, if this is all part of the globalist plan, then wouldn't it make sense for them to try and release a virus at a time when it looked like the European Union was about to collapse?
Because once Brexit happened, other countries wanted to leave the European Union as well.
And the EU was a part of the plan for a one world government, which former prime ministers Blair and Gordon Brown in the UK have been pushing for very, very strongly.
So the temporal proximity would sort of make me think that maybe they saw all of 80 years work in the European Union sliding down the pan.
So they decided to do something and perhaps they weren't ready, but this was the only plan that they had.
And it does rather seem to me that the spike protein is the is the bioweapon, not necessarily on the virus, but more the vaccine.
I think the purpose of the virus was to make us take the vaccine. Does that make sense?
Well, I mean, yes, it's certainly a reasonable hypothesis, a reason for why you would expect that to happen.
I get asked a similar question in the US with voter integrity issues that people said they released it about that time to drive the election with Donald Trump.
And my argument is I don't think they needed to release anything to address that with Donald Trump.
I think they already have plans in place to do that.
So I would I would I would bet that they also had plans to deal with the EU and everything else.
So I think that, you know, this is not they're not just playing one game here.
They don't just have one thing going on. You're never working on just one project at a time.
You're working on multiple projects and you're learning from the responses of the people you're dealing with.
What is successful and what isn't? You know, it's like the NPI that was just done.
That was that was done.
And and and the story is a rogue nation or entity developed a gain of function bioweapon monkey monkey pox virus that got released.
And how does that play out? And what they're learning from that are more sophisticated, more financially free nations will require more proof of something before they will go under lockdowns and follow through.
So it's called a no regret scenario.
And what they learned was that they they needed to implement changes in countries that might be resistant to being controlled.
And they also responded very interestingly to the vote that happened with the WHO, which is even though I would argue that the United States is not held to that WHO agreement because the 1948
signature by Truman and Senate pro temp shows that it was the understanding that that treaty did not in any way change the U.S. Constitution or our responsibilities.
And then the 2005 reservations and understanding state that we would fall under the rule of federalism, which means if it's not in the federal document of the Constitution, it falls to the states and the people.
So what they did from that is they learned and then they shorten the response time from 24 months to 12 months, which allows them to say, well, you know, if it's an emergency, we need to shorten this amount of time.
Well, as a cardiologist, I'll tell you if it's an emergency, we're not talking 12 months. We're talking now.
But then they they're funneling it off in a smaller group and they're learning from the behaviors.
I think, you know, the bottom line is that everything that happens is not done.
You know, much of what they're doing is intentional to see what the behavior changes. And even when they blunder, they're not letting a good crisis go to waste.
They are learning from it and manipulating, which is what I think happens. It doesn't mean that what you're saying isn't possible.
And you then have to, I think, ask yourself the question, is the issue of the EU so important that it would be a pivotal point to which they would unlock this on the world?
Well, if it was a case of a scramble for resources, then yes, it does make perfect sense.
World population reaching eight billion. Boris Johnson on the record as being a eugenicist.
His father, Stanley Johnson, working for the United Nations, again, a eugenicist.
Can I just ask one last question, please, if that's OK?
I know that you've been very skeptical of Dr Robert Malone and I fully understand where you're coming from.
I mean, the guy where he's been working the last few decades.
Yes, I fully understand that. But I was privileged to be in the room with him last month in Bath in England.
And it was an interview where he talked about the multiple toxicities of the spike protein and broached the possibility that the the vaccine was part of a depopulation agenda.
In fact, he used the word depopulation three times and my jaw was on the floor.
I was meant to be taking notes, but I just dried up. I couldn't I couldn't speak.
I couldn't articulate, couldn't write anything. I was just listening to him cross the Rubicon.
Right. So, I mean, in response to that, you know, I think part of my concern is that he has a patent for what he calls a gene therapy to make like a protein 120 on cell.
So here's my response. Any human being can do anything at any point in time and turn around and go, you know what?
That was probably just stupid or wrong. OK. And I'm good with that.
I mean, if you throw that at me, if Robert Malone went out there and said, you know what?
I've got this patent. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
But darn it, they're they're using this stuff for the wrong things.
I just want to declare that I go. OK, I'm good.
I'm good. Because everybody, everybody has that right to do that.
And I've and I've responded again. Remember, when when I'm making comments, I'm making them about specific topics.
I'm not saying I hate a human being. You know, I don't even I don't even hate Brian Artis.
Now, I you know, he's out to lunch on snake venom and Judy and and Richard Bartlett,
who primed him for that and got him going that direction, I think are are capable for what they did.
And I understand he's frustrated because that was part of a private group of just six people or might have been seven conversation where he admitted he had no evidence.
But he was frustrated. He was angry. His father-in-law had died.
He picked off about Remdesivir, which, by the way, Baric is the same guy that worked on Remdesivir.
Don't you know, remember, these people are showing up in multiple places on what they're doing and they're not just, you know, responsible for one problem or one issue.
So I'm a big fan of saying, look, you know, that does have my name on it.
I think it's a bad idea and it's my patent.
And by golly, I'm just going to shut it down because it's a bad thing to do.
And I so ladies don't take this wrong.
But one of the differences between men arguing and women arguing and please don't take this wrong, ladies, is that men can argue and yell and scream at each other and then go have a beer.
And ladies, maybe not quite so much.
But by the same token, women are essential, obviously, for humanity, because if men and women didn't have different traits that were critical, we wouldn't be here.
This would not have worked. So it's very telling that both sexes have a critical component that they provide.
Ladies are frequently the ones that reign in the guys when we've gone off on some other topic.
So, you know, it's a mutual benefit.
So, yeah, again, if he did that and, you know, and the same thing with McCullough, you know, on the money stuff, you know, I provide at the beginning of every one of my presentations on my first slide, conflicts of interest.
And if you don't do that, that raises a red flag.
If you don't do it once, then okay, maybe you've slipped out.
But, you know, after you do this for a few years, it is second nature to you that that first slide has to be looked, ladies and gentlemen, this is me.
You need to know this so that you can determine whether I'm doing anything I'm saying, and you can have it's called informed consent is another way of looking at it right.
That that mindset to say, well, you know, Fleming might have a vested interest in this because he's got a patent on this or he came down with this theory or he's dealt with the federal government before taking on big pharma, you know, and maybe has a chip on his shoulder, you know,
any of the above. Right. And that's simply the reason for doing that.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you, Teresa. Excellent. Excellent points and questions and one question Richard, I got a question but how do you go from being a nuclear physicist to an attorney to a nuclear cardiologist and we've got an attorney about to interrogate you now but anyway that's what
Well, I'm dumbing down my degree.
So, nuclear cardiology was simply my area of interest it was my gift, if you will.
The federal government got involved in the 60s with a lot of little mutants, and literally just kind of came in and took over our lives. At the same time I was beginning.
I call it junior high but I guess they call middle school now seventh grade, we began, 30 of us began at least where I was at and I met others around the US.
And I said, you know, I'm going to give you the exact same scenario and I go yep, you're one of us lucky you.
That we basically got told we were going to do certain things and so we did two things at the same time we did all the secondary school nonsense and we did our doctor training.
And then I went to the music and and at that time calculus were my two loves.
And had a gift for it. And so that began that I eventually became a cardiologist and nuclear cardiologist which is, I tell people cardiologists stupid enough to take more training.
And then eventually, after dealing with the government decided to go to law school to try to figure out what the heck these people were doing and how they were manipulating it.
So I got a law degree, and I'm going for cosmetology now.
Beautiful. Thank you. Well we've got Anna from the UK who's an attorney now Richard.
Hi, Richard.
How are you?
Thank you. First of all, thank you so much for all the work you're doing, and for the presentation I'm finding it invaluable.
I listened to you deliver your evidence under oath. I can't remember to which committee.
But that was an excellent interview. And I wanted to ask you whether you'd be willing to give evidence to our solicitors professions regulatory body here in the UK.
The solicitors regulation authority.
So that's the first question would you be willing for example you know if I share the evidence you've already put on public record and they've got any further questions.
Would you be willing to speak to them about your evidence.
Absolutely.
The, the testimony that you saw was actually in Texas.
It was a real deficit, it was a real deposition under oath.
In fact, I, you know they weren't going to mention the court reporter's name and I said no, no, this, we need to have.
I want to send a very clear message here that this is not a game that this is under oath.
That it's a legitimate court reporter, the man who did the question, what is an attorney who has actually argued before and one in the Supreme Court of the United States.
So, yes.
Yeah, wherever this.
Yeah.
Sorry.
So I wanted to thank you because from my perspective as a lawyer.
You know whilst all these experts are giving these amazing bits of evidence, you know, in order to submit it as, as evidence, you know, it needs to be of the standard that you produced under oath, you know for that particular piece of evidence you gave so that's really
And I would encourage any other expert listening in to deliver their evidence in a similar way in other words, as if it were in court so under oath and properly deposed and led through the examination in chief and then preferably taken through under hostile cross examination, that would be ideal.
But, yeah, I had, I had no idea what he was going to ask. I'm sorry.
And can you stop just for a moment, James is on a tight timeframe will come back to you, Anna.
Okay, so I've got a really critical question I've got a really critical question which we must all discuss. Yeah, yeah, stay there. No, we absolutely know we're good.
James has to leave in a couple of minutes so we just interrupt your flow. I know you can get back to the flow. So James, well we've got you for a few minutes.
Well, I'll just suppose my question and then answer the question later because I will have to leave and if I could just get a recording of this I'll be totally happy.
Dr Fleming you were embarrassed by somebody saying that they were a fan. So, how you're going to feel by somebody saying that he's an uber fan. Okay.
So, James, I think that's something that you've done that people don't seem to even, you know, be giving any proper credit to, and go back to Anna, you know, and answer this afterwards because I do have to leave the clinical trial that you set up, I thought was masterful.
So, this should be like standard practice for the NIH and the FDA and the CDC and the NHS and everybody else.
In my absence, please talk about, you know, your thinking and your analytical way of approaching when there's an unknown, mysterious new pathogen.
The idea that there should be someone who could say that there is a one word answer and we must all do remdesivir, you know, is just absolutely insane.
And, you know, in my view, you know, of all the work you've done, that's, that is the thing that I feel people really need to know about because that's what we need to know for, you know, whatever comes in the future.
And I have to go, I don't get to hear the answer. Pleasure to meet you.
James, we'll try to get the answer to the same standard as if you were there.
Thank you so much. I appreciate everything.
Thank you.
Thanks for that.
All right, back to Anna.
Richard, I've taken a note of that if you could also address that in due course, but let's go back to Anna now.
Thank you, Anna, for your analysis.
No, that's fine. I'm sorry. I'd have let him have the floor earlier if I'd known he'd had to go. I appreciate that.
Yeah, so where I'm coming from with this, Richard, is that my background is that I became an army officer at the age of 22.
I served almost a decade in the military.
And as part of that training, I was obviously trained in nuclear, biological, chemical warfare.
And I then became a lawyer. And then I ran my own management consultancy where I went into businesses and helped them sort out, because I'd done a business degree, helped them sort out, you know, various management issues, business problems.
And so I went into Pfizer for two years. They hired me as an external consultant.
And one of the reasons I knew that, you know, smelt a rat was because I was tasked as part of my services to engage with the scientists to find out why it was taking them so long to invent something in the lab, go through the regulatory compliance framework until it was finally on the shelves.
And the shareholders were frustrated, etc., saying, why does it take so long?
So I had to investigate and, you know, I was explained all about the clinical trial phases and etc.
So I came to this whole scenario with those kind of three heads, you know, lawyer, army officer, Pfizer.
And what I immediately thought in early January 2020 is this is a bio weapon.
You know, that was my instinct. And it was also based on the fact that I knew that these, you know, bio labs were operating, etc.
So the first thing I did was I contacted a veteran that I had trained with at Santerst on the ground in Beijing.
And we spent about three hours on the phone swapping Intel. And at the end of it, we concluded that this was bio warfare.
And it was a Trojan horse to bring in a whole series of agendas, a number of which we'd already identified.
But, you know, more have become apparent. So we both became very alarmed.
As I say, January time, we both agreed that we would talk further to other military contacts and get their analysis.
So I did further research, contacted an SAS captain friend of mine and serving and reported my, you know, I phoned him up and I said, this isn't a friendly chat.
This is me reporting in. Listen up. How long have you got?
And he gave me an hour and a half and I delivered as much Intel as I could.
And at the end of it, he said, I've got three trusted sources. You're one of them.
And he said, the other two have said most of what you've also said, but you've given me some new Intel.
I'll look into it, but I'll report in what you've already given me.
Cut a long story short, I've spent the last two years not only reporting in everything to various military people that I've come across, not only in the UK, but around the world and vice versa.
So we're doing our military analysis, but I've been working with multiple lawyers from around the world.
Similarly, and with doctors, groups and scientists, et cetera.
Now, I decided last year in July that enough was enough and the boots on the ground were needed to go to the vaccine clinics,
gather the evidence on the ground as to whether in fact they were upholding the law on the evidence for informed consent.
And if they weren't, they needed to be served with a notice of liability cease and desist and followed up.
So anyway, I went to the clinic and there's a video clip of me two minutes long where I'm talking to four policemen.
You can only see three on the clip. And I'm saying these injections are not legal, they're not lawful, they're not moral, they're not ethical.
And he talks over me and I start to lose my temper and I say it's genocide, it's crimes against humanity, this is bio warfare, it's a eugenics program.
Now, the Solicitor's Regulation Authority aren't very happy with me about this.
And so I've been, I had to speak to the investigation manager last week, who it turns out he's not a lawyer.
And I said to him, but you do realize that as an army officer, serve to protect my country, you know, swaying an oath to protect my country, I must uphold the law of armed conflict.
These are bio weapons and therefore the Geneva Conventions and as you mentioned, some of the other conventions, you know, the bio weapons conventions, quite rightly the ICCPR, etc.
The whole framework is being breached. But these breaches amount to grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, which poses a national security threat because a grave breach of the Geneva Convention invokes the right to self-defense using reasonable force,
which is necessary proportionate, etc. Now if some, if one side is weaponized, then it's reasonable and proportionate to take up arms of a similar nature.
So us veterans are extremely worried. We're very concerned because we, you know, once people realize that these are bio weapons that have been deployed against them,
and the amounts of grave breaches of the Geneva Convention and that they have the right to take up arms, which is indeed the legal argument put forward by the UK in defense of the Falklands that we were acting in self-defense.
So I'm deeply concerned about this situation because, and I know this is being recorded and you know, people will hear this, but I've said it publicly for the last year.
And what I find fascinating is that every single person I've asked has said they haven't read the Geneva Conventions, nor have they read the judgments from the nuclear trials.
And yet these are profound breaches of all the international humanitarian law framework.
So what the hell, in other words, how come more people don't know this? How come people aren't reading this stuff? How come nobody in the army legal services is screaming from the rooftops? I just don't get it.
So do you have any comment on all of that, please?
Well, one, I mean, congratulations for actually actively being involved in this, because I think that's the problem.
There is a huge complacency that exists with most people that they are of the expectation that they will vote somebody into office and that person would do all the work.
And then you're just supposed to trust them and they will always do the right thing. Well, there's good people and bad people in just everything that exists.
I mean, there's good doctors and bad doctors, there's good scientists and bad scientists, there's good lawyers and bad lawyers.
Yes.
Although opinions vary on that latter one.
I'm just trying to find my charger, which is why I'm walking around my laptop.
It's one of my one of those soap boxes that I get onto legally, which is, you know, people want everybody else to do the job for them.
They do not want to deal with the uncomfortableness of the attacks that will occur.
Yet those attacks, you know, if you stay focused, if you stay with the science, if you get stay with the information, you can you don't meander down a pathway that justifies you being attacked.
So you can be attacked. You know, I have no problem people attacking me.
You know, my mother used to say if they were attacking here, they were leaving other people alone.
So I kind of take this as an example of maybe they're leaving other people alone.
Whether whether you know jumping and attacking on me.
But, you know, I explain to people in this country that they have an obligation.
One of the reasons why we've kind of stepped this up with the crimes against humanity towards say, look, I can stand here all day and I can present stuff to you and you can say, yay, great.
But if you will not actually then go forward with this information that I've provided you and all you have to do is download the letter for indictments.
It has the links for everything that people need and send it in with a cover list says Mr. State Attorney General, Mr. State Attorney General, I would like you to look at this and consider convening a grand jury on these people.
If enough people do that, there will be grant. I can tell you there will be attorney generals that do it and we're working with about five or six of them right now.
And we're about that close from getting one and once we get the first one, the rest of them will jump up and down.
You know, the question is, who's going to be brave enough to do it first?
And that double-edged sword is, well, they're really getting exposed.
But the other side of that sword is they're the ones who are going to get the credit because the ones who jump in second and third are not going to get as much credit as the person who does it first.
And there are people and you know, it doesn't matter.
You know, people in the United States like to do this Republican Democrat thing and I'm not sure there's much of a difference, to be honest with you.
You know, I don't trust anybody, frankly, very few people I trust on this planet.
Sorry, folks, it's just the lessons I've learned in life.
And the reality is that so if you want to play it from the simple approach, the Democrats, this is a win for them because they can turn it over to the grand jury and say, well, it's on the grand jury.
It's not on me, but I did my job.
So vote for me for a higher office next time.
And if you're the Republican, you can say, I did my job and look at what we got out of this.
Now vote for me for a higher office.
So they get their benefit just by doing their job.
But if you think, now I'm talking to you like you're a U.S. citizen, sorry, I apologize.
If you think that these people are going to do their job for you just because they got elected or placed in office by the people that you got elected, you're sadly mistaken until they feel enough pressure from the
population stating we want you to do your job or we're going to find a replacement for you.
And the only thing you really care about is that job and that paycheck you're getting.
And I get that because that's critical for my family.
But if you'd like to lose that, just keep not doing your job.
On the other hand, if you would like me to go away and not be a pain in your side every day, do your job.
Turn it over to a grand jury. Blame them either way, but do the grand jury.
And I think there's enough evidence in the book, in the affidavit that's online and the letter for indictment that's online and that deposition that you would be hard pressed to find a grand jury where the neurons were synapsing on these people that they wouldn't say go indict.
Because we've had five focus groups now of about 20 to 25 apiece, including with law enforcement individuals in the room and to a person, everybody has walked out and said indict.
Why haven't we indicted?
So that pressure is building and that's the pressure that will turn the corner.
Imagine the United States. Imagine the world.
When that first attorney general calls for and convenes a grand jury, a real grand jury, not this mucky stuff that they're talking about, that, you know, Fumich talks about that is not a grand jury.
That's that it's not a grand jury. Reiner Fumich was given the option of participating in the ICC trial and he turned it down twice adamantly insisting he wanted nothing to do with a criminal case.
I've talked with him now for many weeks, having had him on that tour, which he no longer is a part of, where he's very clearly interested in only civil litigation because attorneys, as you know, get about 30 to 40, 35 to 40% of the money that's obtained in the civil litigation.
But that doesn't do a thing to solve the problem. Getting them in the pocketbook doesn't solve this problem or stop what they've been doing.
The only way to do this is criminal indictments to put them in jail. And as my ancestry is bloodline Viking, you know, I've dubbed this Operation Blutern for blood equal.
And I intend that jail is the least of their problems.
Once I push for this, because I think that once the once the American people and subsequently the rest of the world again, let me go back once that first state AG does that.
I don't see Anthony Fowler here these guys going you know what I have to get on a plane and go to Texas or Florida or wherever. He's not going to do that.
But what I do know is that he now cannot go to Texas or Florida, right?
If he does, they'll pick him up and they'll they'll take him in front of a judge. Right.
So he's not going to do that. And that's going to become very uncomfortable. And when there's enough AGs that do that, they will coalesce and file a national suit, just like they did with the cigarette industry and everything else.
And that's going to be very uncomfortable because, you know, remember, Bill Gates right now can't go to India.
Right. Well, Anthony Fauci soon will not be able to go to a number of places. And mainstream media has a real hard time not covering something like this.
So it will be hard pressed for them to for a prolonged period of time, not cover a grand jury saying there is enough evidence here to find that these people have violated major criminal statutes in the United States.
Imagine what that would do for the rest of the world, too.
I mean, I from the folks that I talk to around the world, my impression is that once that hits, there is going to be such a cry in other countries that it won't be it won't be quotable.
And every dictator, everybody who ever played this game in human history failed.
Now they may have succeeded for a while, but they failed.
Hitler thought he was invincible. He failed. Genghis Khan thought he was invincible. He failed.
If you go throughout history, every one of these these people who thought they were invincible that nobody could hold them accountable.
They were always proven wrong. But it wasn't until the people said, that's enough.
That's enough. So you don't have to prove all the points.
You don't have to agree with everything.
The critical things are the crimes that have been committed that will put these people behind bars where they belong and cause everybody to say, I think because look, you know, this happened on my watch.
Right. I'm a scientist, physician, attorney.
I'm supposed to be watching this, aren't I? Right.
I mean, this is on me.
I can't duck that.
This is on me. This got by me.
That makes me a little sick.
Yeah, and it bothers me. Okay.
On my watch, this happened. On my watch, this must be addressed.
So I don't have a choice. This isn't, you know, this isn't, well, I have nothing else to do for the next two years.
Let's do SARS. You know, it's like, I don't have a choice.
Exactly. It's your duty to act.
I'm going to look at myself in the mirror. I don't have a choice.
It also means, by the way, I can't tolerate people that lie and fudge and manipulate the stuff.
Okay. Because that weakens the cake.
You can't go into a federal court with gobbledygook floating around and have them pull that up and stand a chance.
They will cut it to the core in a millisecond.
The time between the entry of that into a courtroom and the time it will be over, you can do with a nake timer.
We can't allow that to happen. We screw this up. It's done.
Yeah. And they have immunity for life.
So you'll find I get very adamant on some of this stuff and I don't have a room for tolerance because it's not about me.
I totally support everything you've said. I totally resonate with everything you say.
And I'll just finish on saying that I say to people exactly that this has happened on our watch.
This is our responsibility. It's our sacred duty to protect each other and the future of the human race.
So we don't have a choice. This is the hill that we have to be fighting on. End of.
But finally, I'd like to make it clear to people who haven't read the Geneva Conventions that conducting biological and scientific experimentation without valid informed consent freely given is a prohibited act of unlawful warfare.
It's warfare.
And people need to be very clear on that because that does invoke for the other person the right to self-defense using reasonable force.
So what we're concerned about, as I say, is that people it's going to get ugly.
You know, that's that's our concern. And we have to have justice, you know, being done.
Otherwise, people may resort to taking matters into their own hands.
And the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that there must be redress.
There must be justice. Otherwise, people can be tipped into the edge, you know, and we must avoid that.
So I totally agree. We've got to put the best evidence in and we've got to get on with it.
I know. What does the preamble say?
It says words to the effect of if if man is not to resort to savage acts of, you know, barbarous, you know,
barbarous behavior, there must be resort to, you know, redress and having their rights upheld.
I sent it to you before, didn't I? I'll tell you what.
Let somebody else talk and I'll find it.
I knew what the answer was. I wanted to put you on the floor to hear.
Oh, sorry. Yes. So basically the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, bearing in mind it was written in 1948,
you know, sets out the intentions and why they're having to do it and what the objective is.
And, you know, what they're saying is that, you know, what it's what we've been shown is that if human rights aren't respected and upheld
and there isn't redress for that, then people will, you know, resort to savage acts, you know, against each other.
When you read preambles, most of them say something similar, you know.
I think I think it's important for people to realize that and I brought this out at the meeting that the military and the police,
I think in the United States and I would trust probably around the world that the vast majority of them are doing a job that they firmly believe is the right job and will protect the people in the end.
And I've done that at meetings and I've had military officers and police officers coming up to me almost in tears afterwards saying, you know,
They just wish that people would realize that because there's this feeling that, well, they're with the government, so they're going to side with the government.
Well, the upper echelons might, but I think the vast majority of men and women that are in the military and in the police departments in our emergency systems,
by and large, take their obligations and their oaths very seriously and they will defend the people before they will defend the system because they understand that their job is to defend the people.
And I want, having just had that little presentation on the Geneva Convention, I want people to realize that I believe that this is where the military and the police of the planet will come.
They will come to the aid of the people to defend the people that they have taken an oath to defend. They haven't done it for some other reason.
That's exactly right. And that's what we're doing over here. We're going out boots on the ground, connecting with the local communities and giving them support in all kinds of ways.
You hold that oath in your sleep, you know. That's why you signed up with unlimited liability to pay down your life.
So you're absolutely right.
Yeah, I think that was one of the movements about defunding the police was this effort to take away the support of the police system. There are bad people in it, but by and large, the people are good.
And taking that support away from them makes them more likely to not support the people if they don't feel supported by the people.
You have to let the police and the military know that you appreciate what they're doing, that you have their back just like you expect them to have your back.
I tell this story about when I was in a VA hospital once and I was reading echocardiograms and this police officer in the VA was trying to chase and was wrestling with some guy who was attacking him in the hallway that the police officer was trying to bring down.
And the man had thrown the police officer against the ground and started running down the hallway.
But unfortunately, and I'm not doing this to have myself on the back, this is what people need to do.
Unfortunately, he was coming by the echocardiogram room where I was reading and I ran out and decked the guy against the wall and nailed him.
And then people came up and we got him handcuffed. And the next day I went to clinic and somebody said, have you read your mail?
And I said, I never read my mail. Every week they change the stupid code on it. I don't want to read my mail.
There's a problem. They'll tell me. And they said, well, you need to go read it.
Why? Because the police had put something up there from the VA saying, thank you so ever much.
And I thought, thank you so ever much. This is what you would have done for us. We need to let you know we would do that for you as well.
This division has got to stop. They need to know we support them and they will support us.
So Anna, can you circulate the video of this meeting in the military?
What? Which meeting? Sorry?
This meeting. They need to hear it.
Yes, yes, absolutely. Absolutely.
Absolutely. Well, that's what I'd like help with from everybody.
You know, we can actually put our evidence forward in a kind of more organized way and then submit it to the military,
submit it to the police, submit it to the Solicitor's Regulation Authority, et cetera.
Yes, but particularly this conversation, because I haven't heard that many.
We've had conversations, but we haven't had Richard's expertise on this particular subject,
because it has been something that you and I have talked about a lot, but we haven't had many supporters.
Yes, absolutely. Well, thank you, Richard.
So Richard, Richard is available for you for evidence to give to the SRA.
Stephen, put your camera down because we can only see your eyes.
Sorry, yeah. It looks like Kilroy was there or something.
The sun was blinding me. Not that having my, I couldn't even see the screen.
Well, move your screen. So, Anna, are you done? That's very excellent.
Thank you. Thank you, everybody for that conversation.
Now, before we get to Theresa and other questions, Richard and Angela Henry is a lawyer in the UK as well.
Richard, could you please address James Roguski's question so that we've got it on recording?
Right. So the 1800 patient study.
So what I did in January was very clear that we were going to be having a situation.
And I have, you know, the patent, the theory that I came up with in 1994 that I first presented at American Heart
was this theory that explained inflammatory diseases, but it also looked at viruses and bacteria in the world at that site.
And then in the meantime, part of the federal case that I was dealing with had to do with the fact that big pharma,
and I was a cardiology fellow at the time. So I wrote the papers that agreed with them at the time.
I said, look, we need two doses of these isotopes.
And it turned out that, you know, they only needed one and they were missing disease and over-radiating people and making billions of dollars profit.
So I obviously didn't tolerate that very well.
But I developed a system that quantitatively measures what's going on inside the body by measuring regional blood flow and metabolic differences.
And by doing that, you can sort out different types of tissue, dead, normal, infectious, inflammatory, various stages of cancer, coronary artery disease, a variety of things.
So I had the patented tests that could actually quantify.
And I had the theory that explained why these diseases would happen with this virus.
So I sat down in fairly early in January and just went through the world literature that I could find on what data had been published that was real data, that was useful data that looked at treatments of viruses.
And a couple of months went by.
And what I did is I put together a protocol where we would have people come in.
We would have them PCR tested to prove that they had SARS-CoV-2.
And then they were given a 72 hour period of time of which they were divided into one of two groups.
They were either divided into you got no treatment based upon their choice and their physician's choice, or you got one of four treatments, which were a series of drugs that I had put together based upon all this prior research.
One of which turned out to be Primaquin, Clindamycin, and Hydroxychloroquine, which turned out to work 100% of the time.
And there's a reason for Primaquin that has to do with mechanisms for attachment and replication of the viruses.
But as I tell people, if we do it with enough people, somebody is going to fall through nothing 100%.
We did that and they had 72 hours and then they came back and whether they were treated or not, they either got better or they got worse.
If they got worse, they got hospitalized.
And if they got hospitalized, then we did what's now called Fleming Method because the name I gave to it was too long apparently.
In those days, it was called FMTVDM, which came from the patent.
But Fleming Method is what it's called now.
And we measured what was going on and then they got randomly assigned to one of 10 treatment regimens, which is the only way to do it.
You can't do this from, I know which one works.
You have to randomly do this.
They all got vitamin and mineral supplements to augment their immune system right up front so that there was no discrepancy between that and the other drugs.
And every three days, 72 hours because it took that long for the plasma steady state to reach its effective level to see a response from the treatments, they would have Fleming Method repeated.
Now, if they got worse, then the original drug would be discarded and they would randomly be assigned another one.
If they got better by definition, then they were kept on that drug.
And if they stayed about the same, then they randomly had a new drug out of the 10 added.
And what that resulted in was a combination of 52 different drug treatment combinations.
Could have been more, could have been less, just happened to come out to be 52.
And in part one, we really were able to sort out which drug combinations work.
And then in part two, we started by having those drug combinations all together and came out with a few drugs that actually worked 99.83% of the time.
And what that means is that out of the 1800s, we lost three people, which again, I'm not happy about, but that was in 2020.
That's where we were at the time.
And we also, by going to a combination drugs that we knew that we had measured by Fleming Method, along with interleukin 6 levels and fibrinogen, a whole variety of other blood tests,
measure drug treatment outcomes versus I think it's a good idea, just looks like they're better because I got better doesn't mean anything unless I can measure that because they might get better despite what you're doing or in spite of what you're doing.
I mean, in the people that started who got no drug treatment right up front, 60% of them got better in three days.
So I could have waved the yellow flag in front of them three times a day and I could have concluded, well, waving yellow flag in front of people three times a day treats SARS-CoV-2.
Right. But there'd be no quantitative measure of that.
So it did, it yielded great information on the drugs that work.
We published that paper and interestingly enough, this year at the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the first major medical conference in the United States, this is going to be presented at the 2022 session in Orlando.
This will be the first major US medical conference where treatments are actually breaking.
So I tried to turn around and say, did you read my abstract? Did you, I mean, did you understand what I said?
But I'm one of the founding fellows of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology.
So the other day when I called him up and said, you know, do you have the materials on this? They said, don't you remember me? And I said, oh yeah, yeah, I have, sorry, it's been a couple years.
I guess they remember who I am and they still approved it.
So it turned out that we were able to cut hospital times from five to six weeks to seven to 10 days in the critically ill.
The number of people get intubated, get dramatically reduced.
All three people that we lost in the study were on ventilators at the time.
No, the ventilators were not set incorrectly.
The ventilators were set correctly in our study, which is the tidal volume for somebody who has an acute respiratory distress syndrome like SARS-CoV-2.
That's what it's called. It's an ARDS.
It has to be five cc's per kilogram body weight tidal volume.
And normally it's 10 cc's per kilogram body weight, which is why people on ventilators being set on the standard settings had more inflammation on the dice.
Because it causes, I mean, the three committees that were already published, the major papers on ventilator settings in the early 2000s showed that if you keep the standard tidal volume with ARDS patients, you'll kill them.
You will stretch the lung, cause more inflammation and they will die.
And we did a great job, I think, in 2020 and 2021 of permitting that. Yeah, that's a good way to kill people.
Remdesivir was one of the drug combinations we used.
When it was the first time drugs that was used, it was successful, right around 28%. I don't remember the exact number right now.
So obviously if you get remdesivir, you thought that was great and you recovered, you thought that was great. It was 28%.
That's just what the numbers were. Now, the only thing about that is that if you can get better or worse, you're staying the same. That's the 33 and a third, 33 and a third, 33 and a third percent.
So it actually underperformed chance, but that's the number. And we also found out that when remdesivir was combined with tisosomab or any of a number of other combinations, people actually got worse.
So again, quantitative measurement is really critical to understanding what the heck is going on when you do these drug trials.
So it did require multiple analysis of variants to actually do that, but thankfully, you know how to do that.
A good researcher should know how to do that. That's how you can report drug interactions and inter and intra interactions.
And you know, it's very compelling, but the reality is you have to target for viruses, attachment replication, and both the innate and the humoral inflammatory robotic responses.
If you want to treat somebody successfully, we've done a great job of showing that if you don't treat those things, people die. That you get a certain percentage of people that die.
I didn't think that we needed to prove that. I thought we all kind of had that down.
The other, I think one of the other annoyances to me as a physician is, you know, HIV happened when I was a medical student.
And we have always had people that have come in with breathing problems or clotting problems or you name it. And we have treated the problem.
We've never not treated the problem. And so this doesn't get into a semantics of which treatment.
This is we've never taken the approach of you look bad.
I'm sorry, you know.
You know, good luck, I guess.
So that's disheartening.
And you know, and it's been one of one of the discussions I've had with people who believe that certain drugs work.
And I say, you know, based upon the research that is published, no, they don't.
And I know some of these drugs are near and dear to people and I'm not meaning to offend anybody.
I'm just as a research scientist, I'm saying there's no measured quantitative data that shows that.
Now, if you think it does, go get it for the love of God, because you ethically and morally have to.
You know, if you're treating people with something and you think it works, you bloody well better prove it.
And you also better prove that it doesn't work if it doesn't work.
And what history has taught me with this is my fifty fourth year of doing research is that typically what you find is something in between.
You thought you were going to find one thing or you got that you were going to find the other extreme.
And usually what happens is results come in the middle and you start looking at the data and you go, OK, maybe I didn't think about that.
Maybe I should have thought about this other perspective, which is, you know, after fifty four years, you develop these more complicated research projects like the one I did, because you're trying to think through everything.
Because you realize that after the fact, you're never going to be able to reproduce that group exactly the same way.
So those questions that hang over people's heads of what if you had done that?
You really can't answer with a new group because that new group will be different than your old group.
So I tend to overthink perhaps if somebody were to excuse me of that, I've heard that a lot in my life, so I'm OK with that.
I'd rather overthink than underthink, you know.
So anyway, the data I think was very compelling.
It's very favorable.
Whatever new things they come out with, I know plumbing methods can be used to measure the tissue response.
You just have to think through. You've got the inflammation, the blood clotting from both the innate and humeral that's taken care of now.
So the only question for something new is how does it attach to the cell and how does it replicate inside the cell?
And that's what you have to sort out.
Smallpox would be a real issue because we really don't have anything to maybe we can deal with the inflammation, the blood clotting.
But some of the other stuff, not so much. We haven't been successful.
Doesn't mean we can't find it, but you know, and you're not going to find it if you don't look for it.
But yeah, so it was I think I found it a good study to do.
I found it a good use of the technology.
And of course, the reason for putting the conflict of interest up front is to say, OK, I mean, maybe you want to say I have a vested interest in my patent, which, by the way, nobody gets charged to use.
But, you know, down the line, they would be.
I think you should be able to make money. I don't think making money is a bad thing.
I think it's the lust for money that's an issue.
Personal opinion anyway. Yep.
Very good. And James, James will enjoy seeing your excellent response to his question.
Thank you for that, Richard. Now we have Teresa.
Hi, you're back. Are you still in Wales?
Yeah, yeah, I've been out in the mountains for two weeks now, swimming in lakes and rivers to get clean.
Do you know, I haven't had many people to talk to, so it's you for now.
So let me get this straight. I'm better than nobody. OK, that's good.
Well, you know, I'm having that Colombo moment, you know, do you remember the old series when Colombo in the last few frames of the episode, he would he would come back, scratch his head, maybe rub his chin and then ask the question.
Well, my Colombo moment is this. OK, I watched your event 2021 presentation, probably half a dozen times.
Some parts of it I watched even more because I had to get my head around all of it. It was so important.
And you made the very good point that the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the spike protein was a biological weapon. Yeah.
Now, that means that the vaccine, given that all eight of the very first vaccines that were formulated, all eight of them were based on the spike protein.
That means that that's not coincidence, is it, Richard?
It's not coincidence.
That they're all based on that. No, I mean, I think that's I think fascinating that this was the approach that was done. And let me share with you. I don't know if you're aware, but I have I did about 60 hours worth of video of taking three of the vaccines and adding them to blood.
Yeah, I've taken the vaccine.
OK, and they turn the blood gray and they cause, which means that they are, long story short, they're acting like a prion on the hemoglobin molecule.
Yeah.
Which we know that genetic sequences outside itself do that. So the only reason why hemoglobin would not be able to refaturate with surface tension oxygen at room air is because the hemoglobin molecule has been damaged.
Yeah.
Well, the Chinese released the sequence of the spike protein on the 11th of January 2020.
Within a few hours, Ralph Baric had downloaded the sequence and reverse engineered the virus because he said that was how you've just got to do it.
OK.
Within 66 days of the Chinese releasing that sequence.
The very first mRNA vaccine was injected into a human being. I believe it was Moderna and it was into a British citizen.
66 days.
OK.
And simultaneously, every single vaccine company in the world that I know of that was developing a vaccine was targeting the spike protein as the antigen.
OK, that's not coincidence.
Isn't it fair to say that as much as the virus or all the strains of the virus were biological weapons, then isn't it also valid to say that the vaccine is a biological weapon?
And since the vaccine is so similar to, I mean, it's the same, the spike protein in the virus and the spike protein in the vaccine, the injuries and death caused by the vaccine can be blamed on the virus.
And that can't be coincidence either.
No, I think it's very interesting if you take care of part the the the vaccine, which we've done and you and you get the nucleotide basis and you ask what amino acids are placed there and then you compare the resultant protein spike protein produced.
The thing that is consistent is the prion regional binding domain.
So the prion effect is the thing that is most consistent with what is made and what is there in the nucleotide based sequences.
The the the other thing about Moderna that people should be aware of is that the agreement to transfer the intellectual property from Moderna began in twenty twenty five and was completed in December of twenty nineteen, which is a rather long time for an agreement to come through.
So that agreement was signed by Ralph Baric, giving the intellectual property rights of Moderna to the US government.
Right. So the vaccine is a biological weapon as well then.
Right. If you have you. So what I always tell people is if you have a if you have a weapon and you copy that weapon, you have a weapon.
All right. So, yeah, I mean, it's the spike protein is a gain of function biological agent, which is, you know, I have a one in three trillion chance of being wrong.
I'm going to take those thoughts. The only other way I could narrow that down is if they actually came forward and said, me, I go, but we've got it.
Given the PCR sequences that we have on these three viruses and how they match SARS-CoV-2, I think it's interesting that there are three viruses that are all gain of function coronaviruses that Baric got paid with NIH and DOD funds to make that match SARS-CoV-2, which is one of the reasons why I said I don't think there's a single I don't think SARS-CoV-2 is a single virus.
I believe it's the combination of these gain of function viruses that Baric was making.
And I, you know, I leak would not just allow one virus out. It would allow multiple viruses out. I realize that speculation, but I think it's consistent with the behaviors that I've seen.
And here's another here's another encoding. Right.
Another hypothesis is that they had all of these strains of viruses on ice ready waiting.
So, for example, if Delta started killing too many people and giving the game away, you know, they could release Omicron.
Sorry, when I say Delta, Delta was killing too many vaccinated people, so they could release Omicron to push back on Delta.
Because obviously in any kind of battle of the viruses, it would win, right?
Yeah, well, I think that, you know, the vaccines have shown us that Omicron has an advantage because it's reduced the pressure selection.
If you track out the countries, which I do in the Crimes Against Humanity Tour, and I show how it changes from country to country, and I show how these variants change across the world with all I think there's nine vaccines now, if I remember correctly, that have been used, including Novavax.
You can see how it's putting pressure on the variants to select out for now, most recently, these six strains of Omicron, these six different types of Omicron variants.
Yeah. And they have a selection advantage.
You know, that's an evolutionary, depending upon how you want to think about that, but still evolutionary terms, there's a biological advantage for this to happen in infectious agents as they evade whatever is chasing them.
Well, they've had decades to develop a strain for everything, haven't they?
Well, you know, they've had, I would argue that coronaviruses are not the only thing they've been working on. Again, if I play my training scenario off, this is certainly not the only one that they're working.
I mean, Beric was interested in the transmissible gastroenteritis virus originally. Coronaviruses are just more easy to adapt and play with. But, you know, the Zipf virus that's out there and the others, I have no reason to believe that coronaviruses are the only thing that they're playing with.
You know, if you're building biological agents, you want to build biological agents. And I have, I don't know if you've seen it in the presentations or been aware of it, but I was actually offered a job as a physicist for Fort Detrick to investigate infectious agents that were funded by NIAID.
So they're using fairly sophisticated technology and they at least think as a physicist, I might be of value or interest to them.
Okay, well, it just seems to me-
I can't imagine why they were dumb enough to do that. But yeah, go ahead.
Well, it just seems to me that the lab leak theory is, it's a red herring, as much as the wet market. I think it's just another level of lie that they're telling us because ultimately, at the end of the day, I think they released it because they wanted to bring in vaccine.
And I think-
Well, and that may be what happened. I think, you know, my argument on it is that I think it was accidental. I think it got away from them. Some people have looked at that and said, well, that kind of gives them an out. My response is, no, it doesn't.
Because you know they were making the gain of function viruses, right? That's not an out. And if they had accidentally done it and done the honest thing, they would have said, wait a minute, mea copa, bad us, we were trying to do great things for humanity.
This got out of hand. But what did they do? They spent two years covering it up, which makes them even more culpable, as far as I'm concerned.
So you could be right. It could be intentional. It could be accidental. I think I'm leaning towards the latter because of the behaviors that I've seen Fauci and the others display and the fact that I think there's too many variants to have just come from a single one.
And if they'd have gone out and done it intentionally, they'd have gone out with one and tested it and said, what does this do? And they would observe and measured. And then if they were going to have fun, they'd say, okay, let's let's try another one somewhere else and see what that does.
Richard, when you said you're going with the latter, could you just, I didn't quite catch what the latter was.
Accidental. It got away from them. Okay. See, they also, what also happened in Wuhan is that when the streets were a ghost town, as the war games participants were talking about, at the same time, the Wuhan Institute was saying, we have a computer breach and we have to wipe our data bank to keep it from being accessed.
What did they ask for? More computer software, better computers? No. Incinerator equipment and air purification and filtering systems. The same thing that you would do if something happened and there was a leak and you went, you see, we have a problem.
We need to get, I mean, they weren't worried about their security for being hacked, their computer system. They were worried about their air filtration system and incinerators to destroy things. That's what they asked for money for.
Yeah.
Okay, so we got a good.
An accidental release and 66 days later they're injecting a well, sorry, 66 days after releasing the sequence, they're injecting.
We're not going to come to this.
No, that's not true.
Teresa.
66 days after releasing the sequence, the Moderna vaccine was injected into a human being.
That's kind of.
Yeah.
Teresa, first of all, it wasn't the Moderna that was first. It was the Pfizer.
No, I think Moderna was the very first one to be injected into a human.
Well, it was William Shakespeare, wasn't it?
The patient.
No, no, no, no, that was the production run. I'm talking about the trials.
Oh, sorry. Yes. Okay.
Okay.
All right. No worries. Thank you, Richard.
No, no, no, that's good. I mean, independent upon whether it was intentional or accidental, they would have known what that sequence was.
It would not have taken them long and they would have panicked and rushed it out, I think.
So just I think that it fits both scenarios, both scenarios.
Okay.
Excellent. Excellent work, Teresa. I'm impressed that you watched Richard six times and Leo is here.
Richard and he's an expert on primates. So in honor of Leo, I'm having a banana just to make everyone think primates for the moment.
Thanks for that, Teresa. Now we're going back to the legal side. Richard with Angela Henry, a UK attorney.
Mine's just a very quick question, actually, because you were talking about the police and how we should be supporting the police to ensure that the police support us.
I had, I mean, the police in the UK have definitely been behaving in ways that are not normal for police in the UK.
And any of the demonstrations or protests that have been related to anything to do with the pandemic have been treated incredibly harshly compared to most other protests for other issues.
And I think from what I understand in other countries, there's a general feeling that actually when it comes to the crunch, it's not actually the police that are doing the work.
It's actually imported police that have come from imported bully boys that have been imported from somewhere else.
So how do you think that plays out? So you we support our police. Do we know which ones are friendly, which ones aren't?
I mean, quite frankly, I don't feel like I trust the police now. And if I speak to my children, I would say if you see a policeman walk far in the other direction, you know, I would say, well, I don't trust the police.
If you see a policeman walk far in the other direction, if you need help, do not go near a policeman, which is completely the opposite to what I would have said to them a while ago.
So, yeah, it's the imported, anonymous and I guess the sense is the logic is that if you import somebody from another country, they're quite happy to beat up on the population because it's not their population.
Yeah, you know, there's there was an interesting study that was done, the Stanford experiment study where they took college students and they and they divided them and they said, OK, this part of the of the of the class, you will be prisoners and this part of the class.
You will be the guards. And what happened is that the guard students, even though they all knew it was just a psychology experiment, took that power and started beating up literally on on the students that were the the assigned inmates.
So there is a potential for people that feel no connection with you to come in and abuse that power.
I would say no insult here to anybody, but I would say that the British have been very effective at doing this in the past.
They took the Germans and put them in the United States.
And one of my ancestors, Captain Fleming, happened across the Delaware with George Washington on Christmas Eve and surprised them and did a very nice routing of them.
But it was the German mercenaries that were paid for by the British that the Germans were just they were getting paid.
So they were happy to beat up. You do kind of have to, you know, think through who's what you have to be able to sort through.
And and I I would suspect that people in the community where the police come from and the military come from will know their sons and daughters and know which ones to to get the word out to trust.
And I would argue and again, I'm sitting over here in Dallas, Texas, and that where you are.
But I would argue that the people that are literally from your country that took their vows will protect the people in the end, even if it means turning on foreign mercenaries who have been brought in, which is shameful for the UK to do that to its own people.
I mean, I know, you know that it's disgraceful.
It's despicable. And it also means that they're desperate to hang on to being in charge.
And that's a sign of of weakness, because when you get that desperate to stay in charge, it means you can be overturned.
It sounded that that is what was happening in Canada and that the local law enforcement, who were apparently quite friendly and on side with the protesters, the truckers didn't fight back against the against the extremely harsh kind of removal of the truckers.
It's going to require people to discern who are their real soldiers and police, who are the real people versus other people that have been brought in and feel this sense of power.
And they can do whatever they want to. Again, if the Stanford study showed us anything, it is that you can find bad people, throw them into a situation and tell them they have power.
But that is different than the people that took that position because they cared about the people that they wanted to be the military for or the police for to protect.
I know it's a challenge, but they're there. Yeah, they are there.
Thank you. Okay, now before we thank you, Angela. Excellent question. The same thing happened in Australia, Richard, the predator, they had the predator badge on them.
They weren't police and significantly different behavior from those imported militia. They were dressed as militia.
They were dressed evil looking. They came in black buses, no Victoria police signage on it. And there's a lot of information about that. Now, before we go to Jim, Richard, could you could I ask you Tom Rodman asks, could you have a look at his question in the chat?
Just the last couple of okay.
The last couple of issues that Tom has raised. While you're having a quick look at that, I want to bring to everybody's attention, a step in activism.
What's happening in New South Wales. And since we've got Stephen and Theresa here from Wales in Australia, a someone I'm working with, he sent me some photos yesterday I'll show these photos in a moment or a bit later.
But what he did was an antique shop in the Blue Mountains of New South Wales in a beautiful country town called Blura.
The antique shop owners son was severely damaged by the jabs and he has now made the shopfront available for information.
And now this has become a magnificent, there's a big flashing light at the top that says, leave our kids alone and the whole window is full of the equivalent of university poster propositions, all against the narrative.
And it's a masterful way and it's illuminated at night as well. And then there's a loop video running of presentations about the fraudulent behaviors going on.
And you go into the antique shop. And then there's a video of Senator Malcolm Roberts famous presentation to the Australian Senate.
And my point is, is a magnificent exercise in activism, everybody. If there are empty shops in your main streets, please fill them up with posters telling the truth, rather than lies.
Now, Richard, back to Tom's question that he raised before we go to Jim, and then Kat.
Right. So as I read this, it said, did the spikes, that's the second one.
So I thought the first one was on PCR testing essentially, but one says, did the spikes cross cell boundaries and enter into cells or are they already there because lipid membrane envelopes from which they were made got them there.
So I think there's maybe a couple things there to begin with.
So spike protein to attach to get into a cell, if what we're talking about are the vaccines, that's not a spike protein, that's the genetic code sequence for the spike protein.
And those really get into the cells two ways. They get in either by lipid nanoparticles or by adenovirus, depending on two different vectors.
So the lipid nanoparticles will simply merge with the cell membrane and release that genetic code sequence in. The adenovirus injects it and also injects into red blood cells, by the way, there's cancer work that shows that, and then injects the DNA material into the cells.
The distinct difference between the volume or the amount is that if you transfer a virus like SARS-CoV-2 from person to person, you're probably transmitting hundreds of thousands or maybe 10,000 of virus particles, and they require specific cell entry.
If you're injecting the vaccines, if you're injecting the mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna, that amounts to 13.1 billion genetic code sequences being downloaded into people.
And if you're talking about the Janssen or AstraZeneca, that amounts to 50 billion genetic code DNA sequences being injected into people.
So there's no difficulty in getting that in because they don't go by the typical ACE receptor pathway. The virus itself, the spike protein, does not just use the ACE2 receptors.
So the sequence that happens is that the HIV glycoprotein 120 insert that is there actually attaches to the NUR5-AC receptor. It's a sialic acid receptor, and that swings the spike protein into a position to attach the ACE2 receptor.
That then goes across what's called TMP or SS2 or transmembrane protein series 2 receptor. That then is cleaved by the furin cleavage site, which allows the full integration of it, and then neurofilin-1, which is available, which also is an inflammatory mediator.
So it starts that inflammatory process. So it's a multiple step process if it's the virus, but if it's the vaccine, it simply either merges with the lipid nanoparticle or inserts with the adenovirus actually during the insertion.
I think there was a test or a question that really responded earlier that I saw related to testing. So this is the PCR question, no doubt.
So in the old days, even when I was a medical student, when Luke Montenday discovered HIV in 1983, what was done is you had a new substance that you didn't know what it was, say a virus like HIV.
You then search the available antibodies that were known to exist for all viruses, which he did by going to Robert Gallow.
You put those two together and you see if it precipitates. If it precipitates, you look at what the combination was, you know what the antibody was to, and then you identified your virus.
If it doesn't do that, then you knew you had a new virus, which is what Luke knew. And so then you can do electron microscopy and then you can do what's called nucleotide based sequencing, Sanger sequencing.
You know, it is a jigsaw puzzle piece because the process of getting viruses means you have to clean all the other junk around it.
You're doing a bronchoalveolar lavage or something else that you have mucus and you have bacteria and you have white blood cells and you have a whole host of other garbage that you have to clean up and get out of there.
And you do that and then you will probably end up with fractionated genetic material.
But just like putting pieces of a puzzle together, you run Sanger sequencing and you find out what the genetic sequences are.
And then you have that. And so then you have identified the virus. And then what you want to do is if you want to do PCR testing, you say, OK, what is it that I want to look for?
In this case, they said, let's look for the spike protein. So they figured out what they wanted for the forward primer, which is the 12, 15, 18 nucleotide bases that you say start looking here.
And the reverse primer, the same amount at the end that says stop looking here and it's read in the reverse action.
And then you put a luciferase or a fluorescein probe in there because all polymerase chain reaction is is an amplification technique.
And so you get a swab sample either from the nose or the mouth. You can get it from stool, the urine or serum. I mean, it's present in multiple body fluids.
You sample for it, you run it 20 times because they get to one million forty eight thousand five hundred fifty five amplifications, which tell you have been asked this question way too many times.
You know what is in terimolis's patent. And then obviously it also amplifies the fluorescein and the way that you know you have a positive test, the fluorescein probe goes off and it says, yes, there's enough fluorescein.
So that's how you do the test. But again, remember that part of my hypothesis for why I think there's more than one is that that forward and reverse primer.
For SARS-CoV-2 matches three distinct gain of function viruses that Ralph Baric made with DOD and NIAID money.
And we know that they were there in the lab. So when you're sampling for that, it doesn't tell you what variant you're dealing with.
It simply tells you that you've got this type of structured genetic code sequence, in this case, SARS-CoV-2.
And if you want to know what the variants are, you end up sampling from different areas of the country or the world.
You get a certain perception of how many people are infected. You run the nucleotide based sequences that tells you what variant you have.
Then you come up with the percentages and you make a prediction. Well, if 90% of what I sampled was, you know, 22A Omicron, then that's what's prevalent in this state.
You can see how it varies from state to state in the United States and country to country in the world.
So the testing is looking for the nucleotide based sequences. That's what you're looking for.
You don't know whether somebody is an asymptomatic cure. You don't know if that means they were infected and now they've recovered.
You don't know if they're going to get sick. You don't know if there's somebody who got such a low dose that it wasn't enough of the viral virus to cause an illness.
And you don't know whether it's alive at this point in time. And technically, you know, you can make an argument that until it gets inside of a cell and starts replicating, it's not technically alive because it needs viruses need ourselves to make themselves.
So hopefully that answered that question.
Very good. Well done, Richard. Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful.
Okay, we now have Jim Thomas. Richard.
Hey, Richard. Thanks very much.
Great, great talk.
I'm a little bit confused about the ACE2. I originally thought that the that first you either had to cleave the furin cleavage site or the TMPRSS2 in order to activate the binding.
And once the ACE2 was bound, that's the S1 subunit, then the badness on the S2 subunit can be activated like the GP120, GP41 spike. So that would mean that this would be kind of a racially specific T cell damage, which is absolutely evil genius.
Do you agree with that as a possibility?
So there was not necessarily a sequence, but as far as the TMPRSS2, which I think is what you're referring to, there was some data that showed that there are racial differences in TMPRSS2 receptors.
I mean, there, there's a disadvantage for African Americans, in contrast to Caucasian Americans. And there tends to be more nasal TMPRSS2 receptors for African Americans, which would put them at a disadvantage.
And I've argued upfront that when people talked an awful lot about vitamin D differences for people that were African American that I argued that it might be the fact that they actually just had more TMPRSS2 receptors to increase the ability for this virus to infect.
Is that what they set out to do? I don't know.
And, you know, I don't know.
Okay, thank you. And then the ACE2 specificity, you were addressing the prion region of the spike protein.
And is that spike protein ACE2 specific? For instance, if you're making, if you're vaccinated or unvaccinated, whatever you're replicating and you're making all this spike or being exposed to it, if your ACE2 binds that spike and replicates it, will the prion disease preferentially affect those who bind the ACE2?
And we know that there's a racial spectrum of differences and some people actually repel the spike so they'd never, excuse me, repel the ACE2 so they would never bind it. Isn't this racially specific dementia as well?
Or could this be racially specific?
Right, so that's a good question.
And the bottom line answer is it could be. The question is whether they thought it out that far, whether that's what they were planning to do.
The regional, I mean, what I think we're going to see, unfortunately, I hate to put it this way, we won't know until we watch this pan out for a long period of time.
I think what we're going to see is across the board this long spectrum. Now what we do know is that the incidence of the inflammatory robotic response, all the diseases that I've talked about like heart disease and cancer and diabetes and strokes and that are at a, they are ahead of schedule, as are the prion diseases, Alzheimer's, which is a prion disease.
We already know from the CDC data that extrapolating out from the animal data, the immunized mice and the rhesus macaque models that were done early on with the prion diseases, where we saw death in those animals in two to six weeks, that the expectation was it would take a year and a half before we would really start to see this in people.
And yet right now I think there's something like 74 to 76,000 excess Alzheimer's deaths or prion disease deaths. So above and beyond the pre-SARS-CoV-2 era, we're already seeing that.
Is there data, there's not data yet that I have seen that suggests that there's a racial difference on that.
On the inflammatory robotic response side, I know that the data is actually showing that the people that are faring worse are people over 45 who are Caucasian. So if they targeted for that, they did a botched up job.
But that might also be another, speculatively, that could be an explanation for more than one of these viruses having gotten out and targeting, you know, they may have had this upfront where they were going, let's target this group, let's target that group.
But if I'm correct on the assumption or the hypothesis that this accidentally got in front of them before they had a good handle on it, and it forced them to play their hand faster and kind of respond to the scenario, that could explain why we're not seeing more in the African Americans just based upon the TMPRSS2.
It's possible, I don't know, and long-term studies, unfortunately, will tell us what happened.
Well, I can, I put in the chat an IMG number a little bit further back, IMG0972. That is an article that was cut out or taken a picture of the Wall Street Journal, where in November of 2019, it showed that Goldman Sachs, through Bridgewater Capital, made a $1.5 billion bet that the entire world economy would collapse by the third week of March in 2020.
That's a very specific bet, and that would pay $100 billion. So I sent that out to my fellow Wharton alumni and said, holy shit, Black Swan coming. And they said, no, it's not a big deal, nothing's going to happen.
And lo and behold, that was the exact week that the entire stock market fell. Goldman Sachs made their $100 billion. Goldman Sachs just hired the former head of MI6.
I argue that this may have been planned out to the day.
And using that, using the finances, and that the intelligence community may be in on this, the intelligence community has supercomputers that will be able to identify this spike protein and identify which, if it is indeed racially specific.
I just put in an image, 1570, that shows that the red means that it repels that spike protein, the Ashkenazi, it repels their spike protein, excuse me, the receptor binding domain of the ACE2, which means that quite fortuitously, this may not affect cloud swap.
This may not affect.
But it may not cause them to have the, and I don't know if that's true or not, but this article, and I'll give you the article that shows the ACE2 racially specific.
So this is something to evaluate, and the best way to do it is by asking our intelligence communities, the guys at Fort Detrick, to evaluate this.
And in the name of social justice, if Black Lives truly do matter, and if Europeans, you pointed out that Europeans actually bind the most to this, so this actually kills off Italians and Irish as well.
So they should be concerned too, including the Italians and Irish in the CIA, because they should know that they've been double crossed, as the Greeks in the CIA have been double crossed by this, if indeed it was a racially specific issue.
So how do we get our intelligence community to declassify?
There's something called the Declassification Board in the United States, and it's headed by Ezra Cohen Watnick.
Ezra Cohen Watnick should declassify the spike protein in the name of social justice, so we can figure out, using computer algorithms, that the CIA has and the NSA has to find out what racially specific therapies that can be deployed and then actually stop the production of the spike protein.
Because deploying this spike protein in the United States and in any country should be considered bioterrorism.
How do we do that? How do we do that with the intelligence communities? Thank you.
Yeah, I mean, that's a good question. First off, let me say I agree that it's a bioweapon and should be considered that.
I do know from sources that Peter Daszak supposedly was a CIA agent, that the CIA worked with him, that he needed money, and that of course makes him quite amenable to being influenced by the CIA.
So that's one of our intelligence agencies, and unlikely that they're going to actually expose themselves.
My best answer to that question, along with everything else, is to indict these people, because once they are indicted, from an attorney's point of view, discovery and depositions become great fun and a great source of information, because then you can legally go after the records.
If the federal court turns around and says, you're going to provide these documents, there's punishment for not providing those documents.
And the CIA doesn't fare any better than anybody else does.
So again, my best answer to this is that we literally have to push the state attorney generals to convene grand juries for indictments for the crimes that these people have committed, and then to get to it.
I think what will happen when we do that, just like when Redfield left, and then he went on national television, he said, well, I used to work for the CDC, and I am a virologist, so the zoonotic hypothesis didn't quite ring true to me.
I think what we're going to see is these people will start throwing each other into the bus to try to avoid as much jail time and potential other punishment as possible.
And that's going to allow us to get the answers that we need. And if this has been done for racially motivated reasons, yeah, there should be even more serious, serious consideration.
And like I said, I govern this Operation Blue Durn, which in my family is called Blood Eagle. And if you don't know what that is, you should look it up, because I have no problem with that being applied to these people.
Thank you. And if your theory is true, that we can do this through the discovery system, have you submitted all your documents in that Pfizer portal? You know, the one that we just had that was authorized the use of these shots for young children?
Did you take your documents and submit them to the FDA? Because the FDA, if they didn't get them that way, it claims plausible deniability.
And then we know that a lot of physicians who know about this racial specificity of the spike protein and are trying to protect protected classes, that's a special term under the Constitution, where you can't you're not allowed to harm protected classes of citizens like Native Americans and Blacks and
homosexuals or transgender, whatever it is, because this is this may be racially specific T cell damage or HIV like issues.
Have you submitted your documents? And are you going to submit these documents in aid of some of our some physicians who are actually being targeted by their boards or by other entities?
Have you actually submitted your documents to them?
So I have submitted multiple documents to the FDA and a part of both.
And I have those documents available for the attorney general to take for grand jury convening a grand jury.
As far as specific medical boards, I haven't been asked.
I've helped. I'm helping one physician who's dealing with issues with a medical board.
But unless somebody asked me to come in and provide a response to medical board isn't going to take anything from me.
As far as but I'm happy to help physicians that are trying to practice medicine following their oath.
I'm happy to help them with their medical boards. If I've got something they need.
I have submitted a lot of the documents to the FDA, actually Health and Human Services also and BARDA.
Crickets, if you want to know that. And that's fine. I don't care.
What I want are the AGs and we will tear it apart one piece at a time.
Very grateful. And if you could submit some of your papers or some of your best documentation to Charles and to Stephen, maybe they can share links or something like that where we can actually take these pieces and then submit them to our attorney generals and our and submit them to our organizations, including our medical boards that may that you may have already offered them to.
And if you have documentation that you have already offered it to them and they did not do anything, then they may then they lose their plausible deniability.
Thank you. Deniability. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. Now we have Jeremy Willits, Richard from Jersey in the Channel Islands.
He's a dentist, but you can forgive him for that. Yeah.
You're very kind. Hi, Richard. Yeah, very much enjoyed your presentations and much of you what you've boldly put out there.
My question was really regarding Gert van der Bosch and some of the products he's put out recently.
And I was wondering whether you'd comment on basically binding and nonbinding antibodies, the potential pressure for viral variants, escape, the cause of ADE, and then possibly, you know, with now vaccinating children, the inability to develop herd immunity in the general population.
And therefore, would that lead to far greater loss of life should we have a nasty variant emerge?
Right. OK. Yeah. Yeah.
So antibody dependent enhancement, I think the Osaka, Japan physicians did the best job right up front on addressing this, where they pointed out that when your body, you know, ignoring T cells, you know,
ignoring T cells for a moment and just focusing, I guess, on the antibody, the immoral response.
Now looking at the people who did well versus who didn't do well in hospital was not always a matter of whether they made antibodies or not, because you can make antibodies to the regional binding domain of spike protein.
You can make it to the glycoprotein.
Sorry about that. Glycoprotein 120 component. You can make it to the N-terminal domain.
And what was discovered by the Osaka, Japan physicians is that when you made antibodies to the N-terminal domain, it actually opened up the spike protein and made it come four to ten times as infected.
So that's a new use of the term antibody dependent enhancement, which is in contrast to how we've used the term previously, which makes this coronavirus a unique antibody dependent enhancement phenomenon.
I always tell people that just because you can make antibodies doesn't mean it's a good thing.
I've had a few people, cardiologists like myself and I'd like to think other doctors as well, have given penicillin G to people and other antibiotics to streptococcus pneumonia for years, for decades, decades in my case, with the express purpose of not wanting you to make antibodies because if you make those antibodies, those same antibodies to the streptococcus pneumoniae may also attack the mitral and aortic valve of the heart and end up producing rheumatic heart disease.
Just because you can make an antibody to something doesn't always mean it's a good thing, which is kind of my underlying caveat for a lot of things that we're talking about, including with vaccines.
Because just because you can do that doesn't mean it's a good thing. It could be a harmful thing, depending upon what's really going on.
As far as the children are concerned, I'm yet to see any compelling evidence to be vaccinating children with this.
Every presentation that I have listened to by the FDA in the United States, whether it was on the independent Pfizer, Moderna or Janssen, whether it was on going to kids, whether it was going to children, I have felt this really sad response, wondering if the general public looks at us, scientists,
and says, these people just don't even ask questions that seem to be intelligent questions, because I keep watching these presentations wondering where the intelligent questions are.
The probing data that suggests that there's actual data to show a benefit.
I've taken the emergency use authorization documents apart. They're on my website. But I've taken them apart in presentations, and I've shown that if you statistically analyze the data for people who are vaccinated versus undvaccinated, and you look at the Pfizer group, yes, there's few people who got sick enough that they were called COVID in the vaccinated group.
Was it statistically different? No, it wasn't. There was no statistical benefit or reduction. If you look at the Moderna data, and you ask that same question, it's not statistically reduced the cases of COVID, the disease, or death.
If you look at the Janssen data, which I always love because they provided just a plethora of data as if more was better, they gave the data at 14 days and at 28 days. And at 14 days, there was a statistical reduction in the number of COVID cases of people who'd been vaccinated with the Janssen vaccine.
However, when you followed that out for two more weeks, that benefit disappeared. So, you know, as I tell people, I guess the conclusion is, if you want to get vaccinated with the Janssen vaccine every two weeks, you might statistically lower your risk of developing COVID.
And maybe that's what they're going for. But there's been nothing else that's compelling about that in adults. There's been nothing about that that's been compelling in adolescents. There's been nothing compelling to do that in children or infants. And the data that they talk about is not compelling. It's not statistically significant.
And, you know, as I did earlier, when I went through the asymptomatic carrier report, what you see is that as more of the population gets exposed to this virus and its variants, the benefit is for the people who've been exposed person to person transfer with the different variants and all the components of the virus versus those who've been vaccinated.
So how you can look at that data and make a compelling argument that we should be vaccinating anybody at this point in time, I'm dumbfounded by, but, you know, I'm just a stupid physicist originally. So, you know, I mean, all bets are off under whether I would understand something as complex as virology.
That was meant to sound like that. Yeah, if I'm insulting you, you know, I'm dumbfounded. You know, I mean, I remember back when they were talking about the teenagers and they literally said, we won't know what it does until we do that.
Absolutely. And general medicine that was just that that that that is exactly what the Nazis did in German prisoner of war camp.
We won't know what this does until we do it. And those people got tried.
And I think six or seven of the doctors, if I remember right, were executed as a result. Seven, seven, you know, so I'm sorry.
It was seven, seven doctors.
Okay. On the second.
All right, perfect. There's a price to pay. I keep telling this to people who are not who are not taking me seriously. There has not been a single person in history who pulled this stuff off, who got by with it.
Every one of them has been accounted and required to have an accounting in Nuremberg. And this is not going to be a number two. This is going to be a it's going to be a one point zero.
Okay, we're not trying to repeat something else. We're trying to address. I mean, let's think about it. Nuremberg was a bunch of Nazis and Nazi prisoner of war camps who did things to people they shouldn't have done.
We have that. So there were what? Six million Jews in six or seven years. There have been six million people in the world in two years.
Now that doesn't trifle anybody's numbers. But what it says is these people aren't even being confined to a country. These people have run amok on the planet.
This is I mean, they have gone after everybody, you know, and you know, their their little game, whether this intentionally got released or accidentally was designed for the same purpose.
So whether they started the game on time or started it sooner than they expected, it doesn't matter. They're playing the same game. They're learning the same thing.
They're manipulating the same way. And they're having a great time doing it while millions of people are dead and hundreds of millions have suffered.
This these people Nuremberg, they went after the government, then they went after the doctors, then they went after the judges, then they went after the media, they went after everybody.
And this doesn't stop just because we get grand jury indictments on the people that I've got on the list.
Because if you start pulling data out and information out and evidence out, everybody who's shown to be couple both now becomes a defendant.
And there will be a day if the people will simply stay the course and insist that we follow the truth and that we do what our responsibility is to the generations that follow us.
Because we are responsible for what these people have gotten by with this happened on our it happened on my watch. I'll speak for myself. Okay.
They're obviously pushing this if they can get the children on the on the on the childhood vaccine agenda, it gives it some then some sort of legal immunity, doesn't it?
But I mean, what do you feel? Yeah, Jeremy, you're missing out on the missing out on what Richard is saying.
He said he's talking in a broader sense than the narrow sense you're talking about.
Yeah, I'm getting about is what is going to be doing this?
Are we going to get the format? You know, are we going to get the pressure on the virus to form some sort of area?
That's not the point, Jeremy. Richard's trying to tell you that the whole point of our exercise is to bring these people to account and not only those who are culpable, but those who have been complicit in these huge crimes against.
Right. But right. But to answer your question, Jeremy, because of this immunity issue that you're raising by if they can get into the children, then they get this immunity.
Guess what that brings up? Guess what these crimes against humanity and these indictments bring up?
It brings up the question about why do we allow immunity to a drug maker who provides a vaccine when we don't allow it to anybody else?
You know, tucking that away in a 2005 hurricane bill might have been very cute and clever at the time.
But the reality is all it does is it brings this out to be also discussed and to be stripped of that type of protection, because all they're doing is showing their hands.
This they must be gone after. This is one of the things that will be brought out. This is one of the things that will be addressed.
I think there are solid arguments for vaccinating people under the right set of circumstances.
But this was not it. This did not do what we promised in medicine we would do when we thought you have something that's dangerous.
It could kill people. I've seen people with with rubella pulmonary problems.
I've seen people with with GI tract bleeding out of there, you know, and and and.
Pushed out of the body. I've seen what happens when some bad diseases do not get covered.
But this is not an example of us doing the right thing.
This is an example of people having violated and abused the trust and authority that was given to them by the American people and the rest of people on the planet.
And they must be held accountable and everything that goes with this must be held accountable and brought forward.
And it's going to be this painful process is required.
This this process of us admitting that we have allowed this to happen will be painful, but it is a lot less painful than the harm that's being caused to humanity now and would be caused by humanity for not bringing these people to accountability.
Absolutely agree, Richard. I entirely agree with everything you just said then.
Yeah, I agree too, Richard. What I was getting at, I wanted to say and understand your opinion as to whether the these vaccines are going to produce the viral pressure to produce the variant.
And do you feel the vaccinated are going to be at far greater risk and therefore we're going to see very large death tolls in the future, potentially?
And do you feel it's damaging their immune system, both humoral and T cell?
Well, that's a detail.
Okay, yeah, we know that the Pfizer vaccine when given to people suppresses the T helper 2 cells.
We know when the Pfizer vaccine is given to people and then they are rechallenged with an influenza vaccine that their innate immune system cannot is blunted.
We know that when the Moderna one is given it impairs T lymphocytes out.
We know that individuals that acquire immunity by person to person have expected IgG but more importantly IgA since this is the respiratory and gastrointestinal pathogen which should be IgA that you're thinking about is there by person to person transfer and that's not even been checked for from the data that I've seen by these vaccines.
We know that these vaccines drive variants.
So we also know that we've seen a flip with the early days that the people who the prominent numbers of people that were admitted with COVID were the unvaccinated and now it's the vaccinated because of this spread in impaired herd immunity by person to person transfer.
So we have seen that it is put a pressure on the variants to continue to evolve.
We have seen that it poses a threat for the vaccinated more so than the unvaccinated.
So all of that data has already been shown. So it's not a matter of me speculating whether I think it is the data has already shown that the vaccinated now are the ones at greatest risk.
And the vaccines are promoting the pressure variants and I think by adding the children to the recipe for this is just more stirring of the cauldron to produce more variants and I would argue more recombination of these variants because where I could be wrong I do think it was accidental.
I do think more than one got out.
I think the use of just you know like indoctrinating people with the term COVID is that that's the virus when it's not it's the disease in people with too much inflammation of blood clotting going on.
That the manipulation and the mind control of giving a term that people will latch on to has done a great deal just like saying SARS-CoV-2 implies there's only one when in fact there are three of them that Eric made that match the PCR profile of what we call SARS-CoV-2.
Jeremy that's enough I've got to move. Kat Lindley is going to make an announcement then Richard our two and a half hours is up and Stephen traditionally asked the last questions Richard so here's your last interrogator but before he does that Kat just wants to raise something about the FDA. Kat go ahead.
How are you doing Kat by the way?
I'm doing great, hi Darren.
Good, I'm doing well thank you.
I wanted to ask everyone if you can go on the FDA website again this time you need to comment on the future framework campaign that they're trying to do they will have a hearing on approving vaccine variants without any trials from this point on.
So, last time what I did I went to the email that was provided and I can please in the chat after I'm done. And I just said I would like to give testimony at the hearing, and I'm not sure if it was luck or not but I was selected and I had to give testimony.
If any of you get a slot for testimony and you need the help to write your statement you can reach me and I'll help you write the statement but we need as many people to register as possible so that someone does get to give testimony.
So, now will I think that we're going to win that probably not but it's always good to be on record and from our standpoint we are pushing hard on the approval in vaccines in children because now that CDC has taken basic recommendations it will become part of our schedule pretty soon, which means that they will be indemnified.
So, our job now is to actually empower parents to know why they shouldn't vaccinate their children and the campaign that we're pushing forward is going to be for infected children.
So, if anyone has questions you all know how to get to that email. Thanks guys.
Thank you.
So, when is the FDA hearing on this.
The hearing is next week but the deadline for the email is actually 28 minutes from now. So, I'll put it in the chat the email all you have to do is just say, I want to testify at the future framework hearing.
That's it. I didn't say anything they didn't know my position when I submitted my first request.
Okay, so, if you if you can, you have my email right.
I think I have your cell phone number so I'll email you right now and text you so you have it you have about.
That's not the point. So, 28 minutes that's not much time is it so I think what he has to do is put a line.
So, I'll send it to him right now, it takes three minutes to write an email.
Okay, I know but you can.
We'll be we'll be off the call in a few minutes, Stephen. Okay.
All right, thank you. We'll put that in the link and send it to Richard 28 minutes to just say, I want to testify is all you have to do in the FDA.
I was going to I was going to give a flippant comment and basically say well why should we insist that they do any research on the new vaccines they didn't really carry through on the open.
Okay, even do that and then I will handle this.
Stephen questions of Richard closing questions.
Richard can I ask you about some.
What are your view. You may have said this during the meeting, but what are your views on the PCR test.
Did you actually meet Kerry mullis and whether you did or you didn't.
Did you agree with him.
And do you think that he might have been killed.
I wondered what you thought about David Martin.
I can repeat these questions.
David Martin do you agree with him.
So I saw a great video where he was talking to a Canadian group I think.
And he was saying if anybody thinks this is about a virus.
So, you know, the usual stuff from David Martin but I think he's very good at this.
And also I wanted to ask you about Andrew Kaufman and the people around him.
So, so in other words, I noticed that you said tonight that you held people responsible for what they said.
So I agree.
There's no point in going down rabbit holes which may have been left for us by the criminals.
That's my view.
I think but also, you know, if we need to be honest and I think that even on our side or sorry on our side,
there are many people who are not prepared to say out loud the word Nuremberg.
I've been told on the previous incarnation of this group by scientists.
Oh, no, we can't mention Nuremberg.
And I wasn't to talk about the deaths and I wasn't to talk about the lies from government.
And this was my group.
So I pulled another group.
So that was doctors for covered ethics and this one's medical doctors for covered ethics.
So not much of a change.
They often get confused.
And that was the intention.
But I just wondered if you could talk about the other group.
And that was the intention.
But I just wondered what you think about these because and also I'm not happy that Covid-19, the disease in the first place.
I am not happy that Covid-19 was ever diagnosed in the correct way as we would expect as medical doctors.
So it seemed to me that the PCR test was that, you know, the use of the PCR test to diagnose Covid-19 because that's what happened was wrong.
And then when they didn't use a test, they were using the collection of symptoms, which actually were common to many other respiratory diseases.
And so I wasn't happy as a medical doctor that the Covid-19 was ever diagnosed properly.
So it seems to me that we're trying to fight a false narrative with a multiplicity of false narratives.
And I just wonder how we correct that.
Also, I just wanted to ask you, how can we help you in getting the attorneys general to to call a grand jury or whatever they do to instigate that process?
And also, when you go around, do you try to teach the people to whom you speak not to just listen to you and then go home and then forget all about it, but to take responsibility in this time?
I agree with you. This has happened under our watch.
You're a medical doctor. I'm a medical doctor.
There are many medical doctors on this group.
We have that we have a responsibility to do something about what has happened.
I think it's absolutely shocking what has happened in the last two plus years.
Absolutely shocking. And we've had this before.
We had it in in in the Third Reich.
We had human medical experimentation taking place in a medical political alliance exactly as now.
And we didn't learn anything, despite the fact that seven doctors were put to death on the second of June 1948.
I absolutely agree with you with the crimes against humanity needs to be blasted out everywhere.
And nobody on our side is prepared to say those words.
That's my view. So what do you think?
Right. So lots of little things in there.
I would argue that the virus, more than one, has been isolated properly and run using Sanger sequencing.
There are some recent papers that were done in animal models that even fulfill Cook's postulates.
So from that point of view, I would argue it has been isolated and shown to reproduce, particularly in the animal model.
Unfortunately, the vaccines may be the best demonstration of Cook's postulates that we have,
which is taking part of the genetic code reproducing the disease within people and being able to to recover from that.
Train theory has always been an issue for me because the principle that red blood cells or the progenitor cells for all of these different infectious agents doesn't cover it,
because red blood cells are the only ones in the body that are not nucleated and can't do that.
We do know that exosomes are a way of communicating between cells.
I mean, everything has short, intermediate and long range communications.
We've known for decades that exosomes are one of the ways in which part of the body tells another part of the body some distance away.
What's really going on, just like interleukins and interferons do a shorter distance.
That's just part of the mechanisms for communicating with the body.
So it doesn't mean exosomes don't exist.
They have a different function and they're not a progenitor system for a new life form.
I go to places, I encourage people to not only listen to what I have to say, but not necessarily believe what I have to say,
but take me critically and follow the heuristic method, which is to think through for yourself.
I frequently tell people the smartest man and woman that I've ever met in my life had an eighth grade education,
a high school education to the time that they grew up.
Those people I use to determine everything that I do.
They didn't have any advanced degrees, but they were the smartest people I've ever met.
Those were my parents.
I use that as a critical marker for everything I do, sequencing wise and thought process wise.
I'm trying to remember all the different questions you answered.
I tell them to become actively involved.
I tell them to go to my website, SwimmingMethod.com, go to the center part where it says letters for indictment.
Click on that, download it, put a little cover letter to your attorney general that says,
you're my attorney general, here's material that provides evidence that crimes have been committed that have affected people in our state.
I would like you to convene a grand jury.
It provides links to the deposition.
It provides links to the book.
It provides links to an affidavit that I have provided with documents.
I've done most of the legwork for them to provide enough information.
So there's not an excuse that we need to now go and do an investigation.
I will tell you that in the state of Texas, cats should like this, that the Republican platform,
with work that we did with people that are representatives, now has a statement at the Republican platform for the state of Texas states,
the gain and function research would not be tolerated in the state of Texas and that the Republican party calls for the investigation
and indictment of anybody involved in gain of function research in the state of Texas producing viruses or other infectious agents that are harmful to human being.
It's no longer a question.
It is a platform for the Republican party in the state of Texas.
And we got it done and all 800 people in that room stood up and applauded for that addition to the Republican platform.
I want these people taken down. I'm not kidding. I don't get emotional with people.
It doesn't bode well as a professor, PhD, and BJD type.
But I want in the end for people to understand that this is not an option.
This is not a choice. This is a requirement.
This happened on our watches. These people are criminals. They need to be taken down.
They need to either be put in prison or punished in some other way, which we can all talk about.
But the party, the time for this to come is now.
It's time to suck it up, send this into the attorney general's foot, pressure on these attorney generals.
And let's get the United States back because as we get the United States back, the rest of the world will have a fighting chance.
And they will see what we are doing and they will know that they have not been abandoned by the United States of America.
Dr. Flemming, have you talked to Ken Paxton?
I'm sorry. Go on. Have you talked to Ken Paxton?
I never divulge exactly who I am talking to.
Excellent. Excellent.
Steve Kirsch is also collecting. He's got an attorney general willing.
So Steve Kirsch would be somebody to ally with.
And Steve Kirsch will be joining our Crimes Against Humanity Tour in Sacramento, I think that's in July.
And we've had these conversations as well.
Can I just ask you, Richard, can foreign citizens, so British citizens in my case, can I write to an attorney general in the United States?
I don't know what the response would be, but I don't know why you shouldn't because I think you should be able to say we are watching what's happened in the United States.
And we believe that in your in your country, you are responsible for what has happened.
These documents provide evidence for that.
And we would ask that you also do that because it's going to look really, really bad for the people who don't get up and act on this.
Again, this is a win-win for the attorney general.
They get to turn around and simply say, I gave it to a grand jury.
The grand jury decided.
Right. It's a win-win.
Okay. Yes, there's nothing stopping you.
I will write a letter to.
Sorry?
Yep.
So Richard, if I write a letter to one or 50 attorney general, attorneys general,
can you give me the best evidence you have in your opinion, your best evidence, you know?
Go to my website, PlumbingMethod.com, download that letter for indictment.
I lay it out in baby steps for them.
Thank you so much.
Okay. With the link. Yes, absolutely.
Stephen.
It does the work.
No, wait.
No, just similar question, Stephen.
Does that mean people from other states can write all attorney generals in the US?
I would encourage you to.
I would encourage you to in our state, you write to, I don't know if you're in Texas, but in Texas, you would write to Ken Paxton for other attorney generals.
And we have a group of ladies whose sole job, they're actually called Fleming's Valkyries.
I mean, yeah, obviously I take my Viking bloodline very seriously.
And their job is to harass as many attorney generals and send documents out as frequently as possible to elected officials and specifically attorney generals.
So for another state, I may live here, however, I have sent up my attorney general and I am also sending to you, sir or ma'am, and asking you to convene in your state.
Yeah. The time to let these people know we're serious is now.
This is pre-election. This is a good time to bring it up.
And as you can just tell from the Texas platform, it's being taken serious by the Republican Party in Texas.
And I'll guarantee you it's being taken seriously by a number of other Republican parties.
Bless you. It should be taken seriously by the Democratic parties as well, because they too should take it to their attorney general.
It's up to the grand jury.
And then it comes back to we, the people.
No, there's two. We've got to go.
It's OK. The 28 minutes has become 15 minutes.
And I'm going to get that signed.
Yes, get that get that signed. Thank you very much, Richard.
Stephen, well done for organizing. Save the chat, Richard.
There's lots of useful stuff in there and lots of compliments for you as well, you see.
So then that's very kind. Send me a copy if you would. I don't know if I recorded it, but it's perfect.
Thank you. I appreciate meeting everybody. Thank you for the invitation.
I am going to go sign this. OK, excellent.
Sign the email. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Yes. All right, everybody. Tom Rodman is running a video on Telegram.
The link has been a post Zoom meeting. If you want to go there, I will be shutting the meeting in a couple of minutes.
Save the chat. Stephen, well done for organizing.
And thank you for the questions. Thank you for the chat. Save that, everybody, in your own system.
Stephen, I will send that to you as usual.
Thank you. Have a lovely rest of the evening.
And thank you for the questions. Well done. See you on Sunday afternoon, Sunday night, Monday morning, everybody.
Kat, thank you for bringing that email to our attention. We've got that address.
So there's Richard Fleming, passion in action, everybody being inspired to take that action.
Someone's put in the chat. I think it was Carrie. Right on Dr. Fleming. Yeah. Great.
Very good. Thank you, Sarah. Thank you, Sue Frost.
All right, everybody. See you next time. Great to be with you. Bye. Bye bye. Bye.