Bulletin N° 1001



“Betrayal at Attica”


The 2021 documentary film on "America's Paris Commune," by Elizabeth Fink, Esq.



The Timeline of Events


Subject: Reform and/or Revolution?



Grenoble, September 18, 2021


Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,

Monday September 13, 1971, is the day that New York State Governor Nelson Rockefeller ordered the massacre of prisoners and guards taken as hostages at Attica State Correctional Facility, operated by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. Guards were taken hostage by the prisoners to assure negotiations which ostensibly began September 10, between elected inmate representatives and authorized state officials at the Correctional Facility. Four days later, nearly 40 prisoners and hostages lay dead; hundreds of inmates suffered wounds, and more were reportedly tortured by law enforcement officers in the following days. (See the new documentary by Elizabeth Fink, Esq., at the link to “Betrayal at Attica” at the top of this page.)


The horrors depicted in this documentary and the commentaries provided by Democracy Now! producer Amy Goodman on the recent 5Oth anniversary of this event are a reminder of the leitmotif of capitalist society (i.e. class struggle). The lives of both prisoners and prison guards were judged expendable by the ambitious billionaire Republican governor fifty years ago, in 1971. Marx’s famous book, Civil War in France (1871), stands as an analysis that reverberates still a century later when submerged class conflicts rose to the surface yet again, for all to see.


Barrington Moore, Jr.’s classic social history of the German working class, in Part Two of his book, Injustice, the Social Origins of Obedience and Revolt (1978), includes a chapter (number six) on “Social and cultural thends before 1914,” which begins, as we mentioned in our previous Bulletin, with the following observation :

     Despite their differences intelligent moderates and intelligent revolutionaries tell essentially the same story. It is a story of the taming of the proletariat. Behind both versions there is the implicit assumption that a large industrial proletariat existed and that at some point this proletariat represented, at least potentially, a serious revolutionary threat. But do we really know for sure that there was a proletariat to be tamed?(p.173)

In this chapter Moore examines the traditional relationship which existed before WW I between the masses of workers and their “superiors.” In a section entitled "Elite and masses among workers," the author presents his findings from a study of various levels of consciousness among German workers.


     After a relatively brief immersion in the autobiographies and prewar sociological investigations of German working-class life, an investigator will notice the existence of an intellectual elite among the working class with a somewhat patronizing stance toward what it regards as the mass of the workers. In modern times this is often the case with subordinate and oppressed groups, whose leaders are often unsure whether the masses will be up to carrying the burden that historical destiny has supposedly laid upon their shoulders. In Germany at this time [prior to the First World War] the distinction was mainly between an articulate upper stratum of workers and a much larger stratum of inarticulate or possibly deliberately silent ones. Most though not all of the information that is available about the inarticulate comes from the articulate. To learn what we can about the mentality of the inarticulate it is necessary to have as clear a conception as possible of the biases and predilections of the articulate. Otherwise the investigator runs the risk, well known to anthropological and sociological field workers, of swallowing the half-baked interpretations of professional ‘good’ informants . . . .  Nevertheless this group’s relations with and attitudes toward the rest of the workers tell us a great deal indirectly about the character of the industrial working class as a whole.

     August Springer provides a good introduction to this elite in his of his first contact with the socialists, which took place when he was a young man working in a shoe factory in a small Bavarian town. There he met a man with bitter features, deep-set eyes, who seldom spoke, but then did so in a powerful manner. When other workers appeared childish and their chatter without sense or reason, the socialist refused to join in with them. To young Springer he appeared very manly, with sharp clear judgment, obviously a model for future behavior, even though Springer never became a socialist. Other workers feared the socialist because he would expose their silliness with a sharp word or a pinted question, poking holes in the bubbles of their slogans or phrases.

     At a later point Springer describes how intellectually alert workers always sought out each other’s company. Sometimes they would find one another at a big meeting, at other times in a doctor’s waiting room. Then other workers would look on either in wonder or with ironical smiles as these members of the workers’ elite discussed Gerhard Haputmann, Emile Zola, Hein, Schiller, and many others. Though it is safe to infer that ordinary workers frequently felt uncomfortable and resentful in the presence of his elite, Springer points out that at least the convinced Social Democrats in this elite tried to be very patient with their more backward comrades. In its popular version Marxism provided both an explanation of this backwardness and a manner for coping with it. As described by the sympathetic but nonbelieving Springer, Marxism underpinned a complete faith in the automatic creation of more and more recruits to their party through the working of impersonal economic processes. Mechanization would show the skilled worker that he was no longer irreplaceable. Crises would become more sever and reveal ever more clearly the way capitalism destroyed human beings. As soon as the worker grasped these processes in the very marrow of his bones, he would struggle in order to preserve his own humanity one must be patient with fellow workers who go after small advantages, who try to escape where no escape was possible, where in fact there was no hole to crawl though to get out of the position of wage worker.

     With a hint of envy of the Social Democrats, Springer confesses that at times he found it terribly hard to love his fellow workers. His own picture of the world bore a strong imprint of Protestantism, and he wondered if the failure to love came from some radical evil in his own nature. Yet he was able to perceive quite clearly some of the historical and social reasons for the stolidity and intellectual laziness of the mass of German workers in the provincial towns where he himself worked: peasant and petty-bourgeois backgrounds of a large portion of them, as well as the conditions of factory life with its long hours and low wages. These left little time or energy for concern with anything more than just getting by somehow.

     If some of the convinced socialists were able to be patient with their more backward fellow workers that was scarcely the case with all members of the workers’ intellectual elite. Evidence on this point comes from a quaint but precious source of information on working-class attitudes, a mine of sociological data that has been the object of minimal exploration so far: Aldolf Levenstein, Die Arbeiterfrage, published in 1912, Levenstein had been a foreman (Werkmeister) and over many years maintained close connections with a number of Social Democratic workmen. Apparently he conceived quite on his own the idea of making what would now be known as an attitude survey using open-ended questions. He asked workers whom he had known to distribute the questionnaires. Die Arbeiterfrage contains the results of 5,040 questionnaires from miners, textile workers, and metalworkers. The bulk of the book consists of verbatim extracts and occasional passages of high-flown prose. Here we have a sounding into German working-class mentalities that almost permits us to hear some German workers speaking in their own words. It is the articulate who dominate the talk; though there are occasional revealing and tantalizing remarks from the others.

     Levenstein divided his respondents into four types, of which only one deed concern us at the moment. Unlike the other three types who wrote lengthy replies to many of the questions, and sometimes long letters besides, those in the Massenschicht or mass type answered most questions with a simple yes or no, or with an occasional derisive answer (such as the reply to the question: “What would you get yourself if you had more money?” –“Four women”). At the end of his characterization of the mass type Levenstien burst out in frustration to say that these might better be called the type with dead souls, people who take an apathetic stance toward all expressions of human life, who might as well be put in a cage and fed. That is elitism with a vengeance, and none of his working-class respondents go quite that far, though they approach it. Well over three thousand of his respondents, 64 percent or nearly two-thirds of his sample, he placed in this Massenschicht category.

     By itself all that this proves is that a large number of workers did not want to fill out a questionnaire, even when asked by a fellow worker (who obviously had gotten ahead of them). Normal working-class suspicion of inappropriate nosiness could account for the result. But there are good reasons to think that there is more to the situation than mere suspicion. Anyone who has had even minimal contact with uneducated persons knows that many of them do have considerable difficulty putting their feelings in words (though a minority may display a striking natural eloquence). Any social scientist worth his salt knows at least some of the reasons: lack of opportunity or even more a set of life conditions that is basically stultifying. Alfred Weber, one of those in charge of the Verein für Sozialpolitik’s inquiries into working-class life, asserted in 1912 that the man tied to the machine was the one who had lost the power to complain – in the presence of strangers or on paper’, we must remember – is hardly a person who has lost the power to feel, even though there is likely to be a considerable degree of resignation, a certain damping down of feelings that would otherwise be too painful. This is exactly what the pattern of responses in the Levenstein report suggests. Members of this mass type do answer simple questions about the forms of pay (piecework versus hourly wages) fairly often; they are almost silent when he tries to tap working-class hopes and aspirations. Hence we come to the question of whether it is possible to use the information about the feelings of articulate workers as evidence about those of the inarticulate. If one makes allowance for lowered aspirations and probably a considerably lesser degree of self-confidence and self-esteem, I believe that one can insofar as their situations are generally similar. Since the inarticulate do have feelings, it is a reasonable inference that the articulate ones in many cases express the latent and perhaps not so latent sentiments of the rest. In the course of this chapter I shall draw on such evidence for that purpose. But fitsy it will be wise to glance briefly at the elite’s own attitudes.

     At least some members of this elite were what an outsider would call snobbish to the point of outright contemptuousness.

. . .

     Paul Göhre, the Protestant pastor who worked on the shop floor of a Chemnitz machine tool factory and has left us one of the first field studies of working-class life reports the same situation. His account is more sympathetic to the mass of the workers and shows some of the causes for their behavior. He described them as persons with no political or social convictions of their own, who made on effort to earn the right to such convictions, but still considered themselves to be Social Democrats. Such persons seldom looked at a Social Democratic newspaper and rarely went to an SPD meeting. But they swore by the program. Within this group he noticed two general types. One, which he thought most deserving of pity, was too oppressed and too full of care to concern themselves with SPD politics. The others were too incapable, thoughtless, or lazy; here young persons between the ages of sixteen and twenty were the commonest. The reasons he saw were the youngsters’ love of pleasure and the easy possibility for satisfying their inclinations. They spent their time in dance halls or out walking with their girls. Political concern was more likely to arise after marriage and the necessity to face life in a serious fashion. From this evidence it is apparent that many ordinary workers were in a situation where self-restraint was not much of a paying proposition.  Furthermore, circumstances imposed enough frustrations for such people to be unwilling to add more on their own. There were signs of this among the apprentices before 1848. There, as in other times and places, the common reaction was to get what one could out of life in short-run pleasures. Very likely the somewhat priggish hostility of the worker elite to the masses ‘dallying back and forth between work and pleasure’ comes from their own efforts to control exactly these impulses.

     Such angry frustration is not, however, the only reaction. One miner, regarded by Levenstein as unusually intelligent remarked that the party and trade-union movement had taught him how to understand his situation, and thorough this understanding had injected him with an honest hate of God’s world and the property-owning class. ‘And the man who can hate honestly can also hope. Otherwise I would have talked my way free of both movements out of contempt for my class comrades.’ Finally, here and there one comes across a sensitive personality, perhaps with frustrated artistic inclinations, who finds the gross and rough manners of his fellow workers offensive and wounding.

     Besides this distinction between elite and mass there were many lines of cleavage among industrial workers. Religious differences were quite marked in some areas, especially in the Rhineland but also in parts of Bavaria. Often there was a line between workers born in the town or city and migrants into the city, the latter usually crowding into the less desirable tasks. Occupational differences we have already discussed at some length. Even a very modern factory in prewar Germany was likely to have a work force with numerous gradations of rank and status, each symbolized by a special consume. Yet despite these distinctions there was a series of calamities and misfortunes to which all wage earners were liable. This common liability to misfortune becomes quite apparent on reading biographical accounts. To be sure, not all workers were equally exposed. Perhaps a majority never suffered the worst calamities. Nevertheless, the nature of these calamities does more to distinguish industrial wage earners as a group than any other single factor. To the extent that there is a justification for speaking of an industrial working class distinct for other classes, this is the reason.

     In comparison with the situation around 1848, in the rapidly changing pre-1914 years there had been a marked increase in ‘specialization of misery,’ roughly corresponding to the increasing division of labor. Among the new industrial workers there are few echoes of the complaints about the squeeze on the small producers that were still a major theme in the journeymen’s laments of 1848. By 1914 the belief that it was possible to do something about poverty and misfortune had seeped down much more widely. The notion of doing something about it through cooperation across class lines had by no means vanished. The patriotic and religious unions, as well as much of the actual practice of the SPD and SPD-affiliated unions, provide much evidence on that score. But there was a new intransigence against property-owners and employers. The workers were going to have to do things for themselves and to the rest of society. If there was an increased specialization in the causes and remedies for misery, corresponding to an increased division of labor, the human manifestations still did not seem very different. Fears for the loss of earning power and its chain of consequences in hunger and the erosion of self-respect were not, so far as I can see, very different in 1913 from what they had been three and four generations earlier.

     From the workers’ own point of view there appear to have been two main forms of misery: calamities and more or less ‘normal’ suffering. The main form of calamity was the loss by the breadwinner of the capacity to earn a living. As the situation appeared to the worker, the calamity was liable to occur for three reasons: accident; illness, or more gradually from severe alcoholism. When any of these things happened, other members of the household had to pitch in and supplement its earnings in any way they could. Sickness and accidents appear in the main as events that just happen. There is usually very little in the way of explanation. The events are merely reported, along with the immediate causes.(pp.191-198)

. . .

     Losing one’s job might be a severe blow, but did not turn into a disaster unless it turned out to be impossible to get another job for a long period of time. Some of the saddest and most moving parts of the workers’ biographies are accounts of the search for work that met with perpetual failure. On this score there was evidently an important difference between the unskilled and skilled or semiskilled workers. An unskilled worker, especially in construction, one of the biggest areas of employment, expected that any given job would probably be temporary. What mattered most about this kind of work was how much it paid. That would determine whether one had a margin to buy some cheap clothes and manage somehow while moving on to a new job. Skilled and semiskilled workers, on the other hand, were tied to a particular kind of work. They moved around from one factory to another, doing very much the same kind of work in each factory. A contraction in their particular line of industry might therefore be disastrous.(p.199)

. . .

Among ‘normal’ miseries, fear of what would happen in old age appears as the overriding one. Workers in the large factories that formed the heart of the capitalist system reached the peak of their earning power at about forty years of age. After that, their earnings were liable to drop precipitously. By forty they were too old to stand the pace, which required not so much brute strength as the ability to pay attention under monotonous yet endlessly demanding conditions. As Alfred Weber pointed out, the career line of the factory worker contrasted sharply with that in other occupations. A factory owner or manager generally was just beginning to reach the climax of his career at forty. At that age a bureaucrat was entering the highest posts he would reach. Even an artisan could look forward to many more years of productive work and social esteem. For the factory worker, on the other hand, just at the point when his needs were likely to reach their maximum and he faced some twenty more years of hard work, he was used up and ready before long to be thrown on the scrap heap. From the day he stared on the job the worker was aware of this, though many must have repressed it in a happy-go-lucky fashion. ‘Getting ahead’ for the worker amounted to a brief devouring intoxication of youth. At life’s high noon there came short rations, to end perhaps in collapse.

     Thought the contrasts were sharpest for the moderately skilled factory workers, they were present for all, and certainly no less intense in occupations with serious health hazards, such as mining. Alfred Weber saw the workers’ career line as the main reason for a deep pessimism and alienation from the existing social order. This pessimism was certainly there and colors nearly all the workers statements in Levenstein’s interview materials. It was, however, a pessimism about their own personal fate that was partly offset by a mixture of hopes about a better world in the future. These hopes could be for a new social order or for their children’s advancement within the prevailing system.

     If there were deep fears about the future, there were plenty of anxieties about the present. Biographical accounts are full of reports of periods of hunger, inadequate shelter in the form of whole families crowded into one room, sometimes without heat and other penuries. There can be no doubt that these were painful and common experiences, especially in the big cities. While these experiences were very hard to bear, by themselves they do not appear as a source of resentment or moral outrage. Until and unless some form of spiritual awakening occurred, such as through exposure to socialist propaganda, these experiences evidently appeared to those who suffered them as part of the natural order of things. Like bad weather they were to be endured. If anything was to be done about them;, the solution was to try for a better job. Especially the younger members of the family were expected to make superhuman efforts to relieve the plight of the household if they were at or near an age when they could earn something. Still even if these experiences do not appear as a specific source of resentment, it seems likely that they contributed to a general undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the workers’ place in the social order, a theme to which we shall recur in other contexts.(pp.200-201)


The 19 + items below include selected articles and essays which provide information and interpretations for injustices and alienation which pervade society today and are becoming more palpable as the capitalist crisis deepens and profitable investments are more difficult to secure. At this historical moment, class conflicts are becoming more apparent and the traditional mechanisms for diverting attention away from a rational understanding of the nature of these conflicts is significantly impaired. The only alternative to public debates on ruling-class motives and policies which affect us all is an orchestrated search for scapegoats in order to maintain the old capitalist hierarchy.


Let us hope that this can be prevented and a new egalitarian social order - more just and more democratic -  can be achieved.





Francis McCollum Feeley


Professeur honoraire de l'Université Grenoble-Alpes
Ancien Directeur des Researches
Université de Paris-Nanterre
Director of The Center for the Advanced Study
of American Institutions and Social Movements
The University of California-San Diego




9/11 Lies and the National Security State


with Paul Jay and Thomas Drake



Endless militarization has bled US society dry


by Marc Steiner


Afghanistan collapse reveals Beltway media’s loyalty to permanent war state


by Gareth Porter


The Seekers of World Domination: ‘The Neocons



by Karsten Riise



The Vocabulary of Neoliberal Diplomacy in Today’s New Cold War https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/09/13/the-vocabulary-of-neoliberal-diplomacy-in-todays-new-cold-war/

by  Michael Hudson


COVID-19 is a Bioweapon?



Interview with Dr. Richard M. Fleming

(Sept. 12th, 2021)

  The Transcript



"Is COVID-19 a Bioweapon?"

(A Special Interview with Dr. Richard M. Flemming)

by Dr. Joseph Mercola


Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Welcome, everyone. Dr. Mercola, helping you take control of your health in these crazy times and we've got an incredible author and physician and scientist and researcher, Dr. Richard Fleming, today, who's going to discuss with us his new book, “Is COVID-19 a Bioweapon?” that is an incredibly well-documented with respect to the assertions and the history that many of us aren't aware of. I mean, I knew that this was a bioweapon, well, that it was an engineered virus, which is the first step, a gain-of-function virus this year. But as Dr. Fleming will go into deeply, and this thing goes back not a year or two, it goes back two decades, two decades, which is crazy, that they've been working on it this long, and they finally brought it to fruition. So a lot of good information, and welcome and thank you for joining us.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
It's my pleasure to be here. Thank you for the invitation.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
So, I would think rather than me trying to summarize your prolific career, why don't you give us a summary of your expertise, because you're a physician, a researcher, a lawyer, an attorney. So, you've got a lot of skill sets. A nuclear cardiologist, too, I believe.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Right. Well, no, I'm originally a physicist. This is now, I think, year 53 for research for me, and began very early in life, just [crosstalk 00:01:32].
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
What about three or four years old, or what?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Well, actually, seventh grade was when the JFK administration's program kicked in and kind of-
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Dr. Richard Fleming:
So, I did some of us out of our normal life what we were doing.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Wow. What did you do in seventh grade?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Well, I apparently offended somebody enough to be part of the program. Now, my area of aptitude, which we were being tested on long before the seventh grade turns out to be physics and calculus was just the mathematic language for that. But physics and particularly high-energy particle physics and something that I find very fascinating, very interesting. I eventually kind of wound up doing some of that later on in life as a nuclear cardiologist, so it's kind of hard to get away from a field that you find very fascinating and makes sense to you over the course of time. So, 53 years of research in physics.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
And in medicine, and as many people know, I actually developed the inflammation in heart disease theory and presented it American Heart [Association] in 1994. I joined American Heart [Association] in 1976 as the youngest faculty member at that time, and I got put in several standing committees as a result. Basic and advanced cardiac life support as well as the physician cluster education faculty. And I did a lot of the research on dietary influences and factors that are critical, not only for in the end, heart disease, but other chronic inflammatory diseases, be that cerebrovascular diseases or strokes, or diabetes, or cancer for a wide variety of problems that I know you and probably many of your listeners are aware of with the prior work that I know that you've talked about. And then-
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Well, I want to learn more about that. But I want to add another credential to your list that you may not mention that I think I'm really proud of you because it shows you're a man of integrity. And that as a researcher, you were on the Editorial Review Board for The Lancet, and you quit in protest of the horrendous article they published to disparage hydroxychloroquine and the fraudulent data that was submitted by Surgisphere. So, thank you for doing that.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Yeah, people either thought I was nuts or had some credibility, I think when I did that. But yeah, really, I research, review for something like 16, 17, 18 journals. And I'm editor on a couple and it just really, this is a violation of science. Scientific medical journals are not political journals. They're not, I mean, we do have opinion pieces, but those opinions are supposed to be in areas of science. They're not supposed to be in areas of politics. And as a cardiologist, I point out to people that this problem with hydroxychloroquine and again, I don't classify any of these drugs.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
The research that I did for finding treatments for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID had to do with the mechanisms of action or how the drugs work, not what category you want to lump them into. I mean, every drug works in more than one way and can be used for more than one purpose. And I think that that's something that apparently the FDA has forgotten for the physicians being able to use on off-label uses.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
But hydroxychloroquine actually was actually problematic for heart rhythms. You've seen Anthony Fauci and a lot of other people coming up and saying, "Oh, we got a case of
polymorphic ventricular tachydysrhythmia or Torsades de pointe." And you haven't seen that and the reason why you haven't seen it is because nobody's reported an actual rhythm problem with hydroxychloroquine. And that's kind of, what's the expression "egg on the face" for him.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
But yeah, I just couldn't continue. I resigned from The Lancet. I resigned from British Medical Journal Open Quality because of the same concerns that I saw going on. And, eventually we either stand behind principles or we acquiesce and become nothing more than what the German doctors of Nazi Germany did during World War II. And as history showed us, they eventually paid a price at the Nuremberg trials. After the original Nuremberg trials, there were both the doctors trials and the jurist trials or the attorneys and judges trial.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
So, these are things that, there are people powers that be that kind of think that they have things going their direction, but it's very clear to me that they're not as confident that they've got everybody under control. Because the way in which this is all being handled demonstrates that they're more worried about the truth coming out than not. And I think they're worried about the consequences and as well, they should be.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah, it's an effective strategy. There's no question because I'm convinced now that part of their process is to get into masked psychosis that people around and I mean, they're doing with this propaganda. And part of the propaganda strategy is massive censoring, which, thankfully, you chose to not participate in.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
So that was, but this is a good segue, because you mentioned the Nuremberg trials and how ultimately, the medical professionals that were working with Hitler were prosecuted. So, what were your motivations to write this book? And maybe we can dive into some of it because it is just a fascinating illustration. You did a great job of doing the documentation. I mean, some of it, I mean, it's really well-documented. You've got all the patent numbers, all the details that you've reviewed the studies that go back for two decades. So, why don't you tell us the story of what brought it together and your connection to what you believe might have happened to the equivalent 21st Century of Nuremberg?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Right, well, so as 2019 did the same thing to me as it did the rest of you. It kind of changed my life and what I thought it was going to be doing. I had developed, I'd spent a couple of decades correcting errors in diagnostic imaging and developed something that I called FMT VDM or it's now come, many people know as Fleming method. It's a way of accurately measuring what's going on inside the body, so instead of giving you a yes, you think you have a problem, no, you don't. It actually measures what's going on inside the body.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
And what does that tool or assay primarily target? What type of clinical conditions?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Well, actually everything, the entire health spectrum. And that's one of the things that I've encouraged people to think of this as a health spectrum. So, it began with my investigation into heart disease, and then it evolved into cancers, and then infections like SARS-CoV-2. So, by using Fleming method, what we measure is, first off, we calibrate the camera, so they can accurately work because they're not accurately calibrated right now for quantification or measurement. And then it can distinguish dead from normal living from inflammation and infection to pre-cancers to cancers. And then coronary artery disease isn't really what people think it is.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
What type of cameras are these? Infrared cameras or?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
No, so these are nuclear imaging cameras.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Nuclear? Okay.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
So, they could be plain or SPECT (single-photon emission computed tomography). They could be PET (positron emission tomography). So, I'm one of three actually certified in PET imaging and the only American. There's a lot of people who do it, but they're not actually certified in the way that they should be. And then, Yoshida is in Japan and Schneider is in Switzerland, and I'm here in the U.S., Dallas, in particular.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
So, it measures regional blood flow and metabolic differences and that allows us to determine what's going on in tissue. And then heart disease is the inability of the artery to relax to increase blood flow and that requires an equation that I developed a number of years ago, a proprietary equation to measure that. So, this test allows us to actually do a body image scan measurement of what's going on. And there are areas that you can define as inflammatory or infectious processes and what that allowed me to do was to say, "Well, what are the treatments for this? And let's set up a study."
Dr. Richard Fleming:
So, part of what I did at the beginning of 2020, was to do an exhaustive review. As a Fleming, I was hoping I didn't have to go into infectious disease like Sir Alexander Fleming did, but I kind of got dragged into it. And I really just did a literature review, which included about 300 to 400 papers of all sorts of different viral strategies, different viruses, whether that be Zika virus or HIV or any of a number of things. And to really look at how they reproduced themselves, what drugs might do what. And then I laid out a series of strategies, both for people as outpatients who might have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus, and for people who get hospitalized with this inflammothrombotic response disease that I talked about first in 1994, the inflammation in
heart disease. But it's an inflammothrombotic response, where I also pointed out that bacteria and viruses cause this, it's one of the reasons.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
And so, I had the tool for measuring it and it was simply a matter of putting together a strategy. And so, I set up the study in seven other countries, 23 different sites with 1,800 people and we actually measured what worked and what didn't work over the time that the patients are in the hospital and pre-hospital-
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
These, you measured clinical interventions?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
What we actually did above and beyond clinical interventions, we measured something much more important, which is what's happening at the tissue level, which is what Fleming method allows us to do. So, you can every three days measure whether a drug is working or not at the tissue level, and how the infection and inflammation is responding. And what that allowed us to do was every three days for the people who came in the hospital with COVID, they would have Fleming method and a variety of other tests, and they would randomly be assigned to one of 10 treatment strategies. And then three days later, that would be repeated and if they got substantially better by definition, then they were kept on that treatment. If they get substantially worse, the treatment was stopped and another treatment randomly assigned. And if in fact they didn't get better or worse, they kind of held their own, then another treatment was randomly added to that.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
And so, those 10 treatments became 52 different treatment combinations. And so, the study got divided into two parts, so a Phase 1 and a Phase 2. Phase 1 was really sorting out what drugs work and what combinations and then Phase 2 was taking those combinations that have proven themselves and actually then applied them right up front. So, over the course of that study, we saw hospitalizations go from five to six weeks down to one to two weeks with turn around. And we were very specific in how the ventilators were supposed to be used because they're being used incorrectly. And we've known that the incorrectly is just nobody seems to be reading the papers.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
So on the website, FlemingMethod.com, one of the categories are published papers, and there's over 160 papers now on that site for people to look at the EUA (emergency use authorization) documents of the vaccines. How different drugs may treat these viruses. What do the vaccines do? Just do the genetic sequences of the drug vaccines actually get into human DNA? That type of thing. So, instead of asking opinions, because there's enough people giving enough opinions, my area is science. I'm a research scientist physician and I'm adamant that you kind of have to come up to speed and present a scientific proof of what you're talking about. And sometimes that means I'm not going to be first, but I'm going to be right or at least as right as humans can be with our science. So, that was kind of the goal.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
And then in the process of doing that research, I simply dug more and more and more and investigated what was going on and that led me into the background of the research that many of these people had been doing. The millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars that had been funneled out of the U.S. and Anthony Fauci has helped with that. I mean, he's been on those committees. You can see it in the book. You can see the grant numbers in the book. You can see the gain-of-function, which is the research that tries to look at viruses or other infections. But in this case, viruses to say, "Well, if we could make the virus just a little more infective, maybe we could stay ahead of it." And that theoretically, sounds really good and I think as a research scientist is good.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Unfortunately, the question becomes, “What happens when people go beyond the really good things or what happens when people start doing things that maybe have some nefarious motives?” And that's kind of what you see happening. You see real efforts to produce viruses, coronaviruses, in particular. Spiked proteins of coronaviruses to be even more specific, as I show in the book, paid for by the federal government by people who say that, "No, we’re not involved in gain-of-function research. Well, their fingerprints are on the documents or on the published papers or on the grants or on the patents. You can't say that you're not involved in things when the documents show differently.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
And it shows the work that came out of the federal government that went to Peter Daszak, Ph.D., at Eco Health, that went to Ralph Baric, Ph.D., at the University of North Carolina, Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and other places. I mean, these aren't the only places involved, but there's certainly, big names that are involved in the process. And for me, as a researcher, obviously, once I start to investigate something about the only way you can stop me from doing that is to put a bullet in my head. And otherwise, I'm going to stay after it. And one thing led to another and we have been actively following this investigation.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
There are things obviously that are not in the book that are going to come out at international court that I'm saving for that, for the International Criminal Court because this virus is, by definition, a biological weapon. It violates the Biological Weapons Convention treaty. You just have to look at the definitions. It provides nothing useful to humanity. It's dangerous. When Fort Detrick is involved and the Department of Defense is involved and these guys aren't working with the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts. And you see these monies and you see the people who are involved, you realize that, as I put it to people, the United States was playing China, China was playing the United States, and you saw who got caught in between, and they're still playing the game.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
And it's, for lack of a better term, this book is an indictment. And that's now my attorney hat going on saying that I have provided in this book [inaudible 00:17:07] of evidence that I would take to a grand jury and say, "Ladies and gentlemen, a blind person, if needed, we could put it in
[inaudible 00:17:17] what's going on. And only if you choose not to do this, can it be ignored." But I'm not somebody who is going to give up on having these people dealt with because all the freedoms that we have, and the rights that we have as individuals, not to mention just the numbers of people who have died.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
And my argument is, if they got the virus, and they died with these diseases, they did die from the virus. The reason why they died is because they didn't get treatment for the inflammation and the blood clotting that I've shown works and other people, other doctors have shown that they have data that they believe works, right? And the ultimate argument is that you can't kill somebody more than dead, so if they don't have the measured data, which I think that they should have, and I would help them if they wanted. What we do know is that they can't do worse than kill the patient. And we've already seen what doing nothing does. It kills the patient.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
At no other time in American history have doctors looked at patients and said, "We can't do anything for you. Go home and come back when you get sicker." And we have always treated people with breathing problems with medications for breathing. We've always treated people with clotting problems with medicines to stop the clotting. And so, the reason why this is so critical to understand is because the same people who were involved in the funding of this bioweapon are the same people who have interfered with doctors providing treatment to patients, are the same people who have been involved in the development of these vaccines. And once you appreciate and it's up to you, the reader, “Is COVID-19, a Bioweapon? The Scientific and Forensic Investigation,” it's up to the reader to decide, is it a bioweapon?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
But if you come to that conclusion and I think you will, then you have to recognize that the vaccines that are nothing more than the genetic reproduction of that bioweapon is a bioweapon. And now, what you see is the same people who made the weapon blocking treatment and disseminating more the weapon producing harm. And right now, the Delta variant is a classic example of pressurization, of selective pressurization of this virus to go that pathway because natural immunity gets you immunity to the spike protein, to the nucleocapsid, to the rest of the components of the virus and if you only target the spike protein, and that spike protein changes then the idea of a drug vaccine biologic is just laughable because it won't work. It's going to be too different from what you expose the body to, and it's not going to recognize it.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
So, we have taken this mass forced vaccination of a bioweapon, we have not provided informed consent because if you look at the package inserts, they're blank, intentionally blank. I've shown that at Event 2021, and other people have shown it. So, there is no informed consent for physicians to provide. So, if you're injecting someone with these drug vaccine biologics, you are injecting them with something that you cannot possibly give them informed consent for, which means you're violating your Hippocratic Oath, you're violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Treaty, you're violating the Nuremberg Code, you're violating the
Declaration of Helsinki. It's right across the board. It's not even something that you can pretend doesn't happen anymore. It's just in everybody's faces.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
And you can see that the powers that be are so stressed out right now that they are cajoling and coercing and manipulating and attacking. And in Italy, my friends in Italy, tell me that the behavior of the Italians from people feeling stressed, the vaccinated people are behaving in the same way that they did during World War II towards the Jews and the intellectuals. And let's remember, the first people that Hitler put in concentration camps weren't the Jews. The first people were the intellectuals because if you take the intellectuals and the doctors off the street, if you stop people from talking, you can control the people.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
So, the pressure being put on the medical community in this country, in Italy, in other countries around the world to simply go along is nothing more than the equivalent of what Adolf Hitler did and the SS did during World War II when they rounded up the intellectuals. And it's just one will lead to the next and there's nothing about this that has been a successful campaign to control an infectious virus and a manmade one at that.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah, well, that's a lot of information. So, I would suggest that it's a bit different than what Hitler did because that was a while ago. We're talking 70, 80 years ago. So we've gotten much more sophisticated technologically, and the propaganda campaign is exponentially, exponentially more effective. So it's much easier to control the population through propaganda than it is through carting them off in trains and putting them to the concentration camps. So, I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the equivalent of this vaccine. I mean, many people are calling it the “kill shot” with respect to the equivalent of essentially getting people and putting them on the trains and sending them to the camps.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Well, the answer to that question is, all you have to do is read the Emergency Use Authorization documents. And I'm just stunned at how many people have not read this. I'm stunned at physicians not having read this. I mean, I thought we always read the package insert or at least read the Emergency Use Authorization documents. And when you do that and you can go to FlemingMethod.com. I've got several presentations on there, PDFs, you can download, where I've done this. And you read the Emergency Use Authorization documents and you take the data out of those documents and you ask very fundamental scientific questions.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Is there any statistical difference in the people, in the number of people who developed COVID or who die and the people who are vaccinated versus those who are not vaccinated? And you come to a very definite conclusion. There is no statistical difference in the two groups. The vaccines do not statistically reduce. There are fewer cases, but not statistically.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
And nobody in their right mind, I think, who's a physician would walk up to somebody and say, "Mrs. Jones, Mr. Jones, I have this drug that I want to give you to prevent you from getting heart disease. Now, it won't do anything more than a sugar pill, but I want you to take it." Physicians wouldn't prescribe that. And patients I think, if they fully listen to the statement, wouldn't take it. They would go, "Well, why would I take something that's going to have no better outcome for me than doing nothing, right?"
Dr. Richard Fleming:
So, you look at that and then you look at the fact that there are side effects, right? There are side effects. There's inflammation and blood clotting, like I've talked about and we're seeing it because when you look at these vaccines, and you look at Pfizer and Moderna and you look at how many mRNA are in there, it's about 13.1 billion, right? And you look at the double-stranded DNA with AstraZeneca and Janssen, which is what people call Johnson & Johnson, and that's 50 billion. So, after doing-
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Are you sure?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Excuse me for the interruption because some others are saying it's 40 trillion and I'm wondering where they come up with that number. I've seen that 40 trillion referenced a few times now, but you're saying 13 billion? I mean, they're both huge numbers, but [crosstalk 00:25:49].
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Right, so yeah, it is. Well, there are actually equations that you can use and I've put those references on the website as well. But you can actually go calculate based upon the size of the molecules and the size of what you're putting in how many versions you're getting at it, so that's where those-
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Okay, so 13 billion.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Yeah. It's 13.1 billion for the mRNA and 50 billion for the double-stranded DNA. So, here's the thing, when you have a person transferring from person-to-person the actual virus, even though it's a gain-of-function manmade virus, they're getting hundreds, thousands, I don't know, let's be generous and say 10,000? Okay?
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Mm-hmm (affirmative).
Dr. Richard Fleming:
So, every one of those has to attach to a cell and they put in one genetic code sequence. Now, you give vaccines, so what happened was the people with the comorbidities, they already had heart disease and high blood pressure. They died, because they already had inflammation and blood clotting going on and this just made it worse. And unfortunately, nobody treated them for the inflammation and the blood clotting. Have they done that, I would argue that these people would still be alive. In fact, our study showed 99.83% success, which means maybe we had lost 20,000 people in the U.S., which is still a fair number of people, don't get me wrong. It's just not over 600,000, right? We lost three people in this study and those three people I still think about every day, because they're three people that we lost.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
So, you get that type of phenomenon and what you see is person-to-person only has problems if you have underlying diseases that don't get treated. Now, what you take is you mass vaccinate the population and you have people who are healthy. And that's what we're seeing, healthy people having reactions. Why are they having reactions? Because they're healthy. They're getting inundated with billions of genetic sequences making spike proteins that don't stay at the site of injection. We know Moderna did a study that we published, that's on the website, that Moderna published using lipid nanoparticle vaccines for influenza and they published it in 2017. And the animal models show that the lipid nanoparticles didn't stay at the site of injection. They were in the brain, the bone marrow, the liver, the spleen, every part of the body.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
So, for people to come up now and say, "Gosh, golly, gee whiz, we just didn't expect that" is a little disingenuous. And I think you kind of have to ask yourself the question, “Why does the cardiologist know about the 2017 paper, but the people responsible for the technology claim that they don't?” And so, what you see are normal healthy people responding to a massive production of spike proteins and those people should, healthy people should make a massive immune response. And what does that immune response do? It produces inflammation and blood clotting, and then the spike proteins go across the blood-brain barrier and causes prion diseases just like what's been shown in the humanized mice and the Rhesus Macaque models.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Now, I'm willing to bet that the people who made this gain-of-function virus I already knew that because retrospectively, one of the things that I discovered, one of the things that had the government coming after me early on and Big Pharma coming after me in the 1990s, in the early 2000s, was the fact that the research that I was doing in dietary and inflammatory disease has the same neuro-5-AC raft receptor that the glycoprotein 120 of HIV that Shi Zhengli put in, in 2004, attaches to. So, the people that were doing this were paralleling my research, except stupid me, I was just focusing, I thought on something really good, inflammation and heart disease and that type of thing. But it turns out that that information is critical for getting this virus to be able to attach and to infect people like it's doing.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
So, it's interesting how you can be minding your own business and doing really good research and trying to answer some questions and it might just expose the people that are doing nefarious things, but it's very clear. And the question that the book asked is, "Is COVID-19 a bioweapon?" And the data is extremely, painfully clear. The next question is, "What are we going to do about it?" And I think the answer is very clear. Unless you think — these people did not develop this and stop. This is not the first go round. In fact, Li-Meng Yan points out very clearly that her work over in China that she knew very clearly that SARS-CoV-1 was the first bioweapon.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
And one thing that's pointed out in the book is that in 2006, the Chinese published a paper where they did a gain-of-function virus that they combined four viruses in, in 2006. Those viruses were HIV, hepatitis C virus, SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 and they labeled it that way. They labeled it that way. So in 2006, they had this, they were working on it.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Is it Baric in North Carolina?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
No. That was another group of researchers out of China, so the Chinese were putting this together. This was, so when I say that, more than Baric and Shi Zhengli, I mean, there's evidence to show that a number of countries were involved. It's just that the U.S. and China managed to excel at this. And I got a job offer the other day to try to recruit me to be the physicist imaging specialist for an NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) project on viruses at Fort Detrick.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Yeah, yeah. When I got those email requests, I thought, "You have got to be kidding. Do you know who I am?" I mean, you know what I mean? This is a nice example of people looking out there for the right people with the right type of training to do things. But not asking that fundamental question of, “What are the ethics of these people?”
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah, well, that will be one of the major factors contributing to their ultimate downfall. I want to go back to a point you mentioned earlier with respect to the individuals having to decide about taking this COVID injection. I hesitate to call [it] a vaccine, because it really isn't by any definition, strict definition. Assumed that if the average individual knew that there was just no statistical difference and it was essentially a placebo why would they take it?
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Well, there are external factors that can contribute to that. I mean, certainly, when people, many people have been in communities where they could have been part of a lottery, win $1 million to $5 million is one. And then the others, I mean, I think Biden administration is now considering, maybe it's implemented by the time this interview airs is $100 if you get the vaccine. But even more importantly, it's mandatory for large segments of the population. And even though, and I'd like your comments on this, because in my mind, that is an absolute distortion of law, the rule of law because there's no way this could be mandatory. It's an absolute violation of First Amendment principles for the freedom of choice.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
So, because like every government employee is now mandated to get it and I think they're the biggest employer in the country and large corporations, Facebook. CNN showed a nice little attack on me recently. They just fired four people who came to work who weren't vaccinated. And there are many large companies who are getting away with it and other than the justification that it's illegal to do. So, many of these people don't have that freedom of choice. They just, they literally don't. I mean, if they want to participate in society as they normally did.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Right. Well, to begin with, I would argue there's several legal violations that are going on here and-
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah, yeah, but please expand. There's not many more people qualified than you to address this.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Well, the biggest problem are all the private industries because the Constitution of the United States doesn't apply to private corporations, right? The Constitution of the United States applies to a contract or a compact actually, between the states and the federal government, but it's important to note that the federal government, in this compact that we call the U.S. Constitution is actually subservient to the states. The states are not subservient to the Federal government.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
And so, the states have the power and the authority to determine what happens. And anything that's public and cannot coerce people to do that. Now, how do we know that? Well, because Article III of the U.S. Constitution states that interpretation of what's constitutional is or not, is the right of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has already ruled that there are personal privileges and liberties that people have including sex, health care and family. And all you need to do to prove that, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, is you need history, custom and tradition, which we have in this country.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
We have a history of patients being treated by their doctors and not coercing people to be vaccinated with experimental research. We have a history of doctors using off-label drug use,
which raises the question about how the federal government is violating the ability of physicians to practice medicine. We have a government, custom of the government not interfering with this doctor-patient relationship. We have several Supreme Court cases in which the Supreme Court has ruled that people have the right to health care as they wanted.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Rochin versus California had to do with an individual who was forced to undergo emetic medications to force him to vomit, to bring up things in his stomach that the Supreme Court said, "You do not have a right to force this medication on people." Griswold versus Connecticut showed that the U.S. government cannot take away the personal rights of healthcare in individuals unless there's some type of compelling and substantial reason and then it has to be put into law. It can't come out of the executive branch. Cruzan versus Director of Missouri Department of Health in 1990, specifically stated that patients have a right to refuse any treatment. You cannot force treatment on people.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Well, this is forced treatment. This is coerced treatment. And Doe v. Rumsfeld proved in 2004 that investigational drugs could not be forced upon people unless there is a presidential waiver or informed consent. Well, here's the kicker on presidential waiver, which is what they're going to go to.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Is that the justification they're using to make this happen?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Yeah, yeah, so here's the thing. Anybody who takes an oath of office, the President of the United States, senators, representatives to Congress, governors, police officers, judges, lawyers, administrative officials, anybody who takes that oath cannot violate the U.S. Constitution. If they do, they've committed treason, by definition. In the U.S. Constitution, it states that Treaty Law and the Constitution and statutes are the supreme law of the land. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights specifically states that you cannot force people to take a drug that they have to have informed consent, and that animal research has to have been done beforehand to prove it's safe. So, if a President including this one, issues an order that this is a mandate and required, then he is violating the U.S. Constitution by violating Treaty and therefore has committed treason.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
It's an impeachable offense.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
It's not only impeachable offense, it is punishable by death because that's treason. You can't force U.S. citizens to undergo forced experimentation. And you can't get around that by doing something cute like having the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) say, "Whoa. Well, we've now approved it, okay?" Because the Supreme Court has already ruled that you cannot force people to take a treatment and the only party that can change that is the Supreme Court. And that
would require a court case taken to the Supreme Court where they said, "Well, we were wrong before."
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Has that ever happened? It's happened once in the history of this Supreme Court only once, only once. The Supreme Court is not going to turn around at this point in time and tell American citizens that you must be vaccinated. Because you can see right now the vaccines are showing for themselves, the problem is, is there's this increase in Delta variant, right?
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
But what about Biden packing the Supreme Court, an issue that he failed and refused to comment on prior to his election or that but appears to be at least as far as I've read, that that's his intention at this point. You're going to put a number of other justices on there to essentially totally unbalance the design of the whole system that forefathers have.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Well, here's the obligation of the people that the forefathers expressed. You have an obligation to stand up and do what's right. If the people, if the elected individuals, which don't, the government does not tell the citizens what to do. The citizens tell the government what to do. The elected officials are elected and put there by the people. The government doesn't put the people here. The people have a right to tell this government what it can and cannot do.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
And that's one of the reasons why you want to silence the scientists and the doctors. If you can coerce them, so they will not talk to the people, if you will separate the people, if you will quarantine the people. We've never quarantined the healthy before. In the history of mankind, you don't quarantine the healthy. You quarantine the sick, which, gosh, my parents did that, right? “You're sick, you're staying home from school, you're not spreading this to others,” right? That's what common sense intelligent people do. If you're sick, you don't go out in society and cough and sneeze on people. You're not going to get better as a result, you're only going to make other people sick, but you don't quarantine the healthy.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
There's also data that shows that natural immunity provides the memory cells to this virus just like it does anything else and it provides it independent upon how severe the infection was. All these vaccines do and they're drug vaccine biologics. They're designed to elicit an immune response, okay? And they're playing this game. All they do, and people don't understand this either, they do not prevent you from getting infected and they do not prevent you from spreading the infection. What they do is because you've been exposed to it, in this case, the spike protein, you will form an immune response to it. And then when you become infected, for real, it will shorten the amount of time it takes you to respond to it, so your symptoms will be less.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Well guess what? Advil, Motrin, Aleve, ibuprofen, aspirin, all do the same thing and it didn't cost us billions and trillions of dollars to do and it didn't violate your rights. You get to go decide if you want to take those medications or not. So, a lot of-
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Even though they may be associated with some risk. I mean, there's many professionals-
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Yeah, look.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
-who are now recommending anti-inflammatories in COVID.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Well, that's-
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
I mean, with the exception of severe disease and you have drugs like budesonide and methylprednisolone.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Yeah, there's- so you could- yeah, you could use [crosstalk 00:47:32].
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
But, let's get back to your original argument because it's really good. You laid a strong argument, legal case for not having mandatory vaccinations, even though it appears that large segments of the population are undergoing that right now. So, even though you've laid out the case, how do we prevent this? Is there a revolution coming up or is it legal suits that need to be followed? What's the process?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Yeah, so more than one thing, obviously. On the website, on FlemingMethod.com, you can go, there are exemptions. I've already put together a format exemption that covers medical, legal, religious and constitutional rights that people have. You're welcome to go there. Download the PDF. Add your medical information in there, your name, the people involved and send it into the people. That's first step. Okay? Taking action, not roll it-
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Where do they send this form? Where do they send the form to?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Well, they send it to whoever is mandating that they take the vaccine, right?
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Okay. Giving them notice.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
So, if your employers do – huh?
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Even in most, even federal employees can do that?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Absolutely, absolutely. Yeah. And this is where I got to the place that the President would have to actually issue a waiver on what the Supreme Court has already done under Doe v. Rumsfeld. And doing so then violates the Constitution, which makes it an impeachable offense because he's violated his oath. So that's one thing. The second thing is for people to-
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Before a second thing, is that Doe v. Rumsfeld, Donald Rumsfeld?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
I think so, yeah.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah, yeah. Interesting.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
I'd have to go back and look at it. I'm not [crosstalk 00:44:03].
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah, it sounds like it.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
It had to do with the administration of the investigational drugs to military personnel.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah, it probably was. All right. Sorry for the interruption.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Yeah. No, that's all right.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
He was Secretary of Defense, so.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
The other thing is to take legal action. So, I'm working with a number of attorneys to file suits in this country. I will also tell you that I am one of the experts in the International Court and Italian courts right now for suits being filed for crimes against humanity. So, the bottom line answer to this is going to be everybody deciding that they need to take action and they need to be held accountable. Yes, this may mean you lose your job.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Okay, so they can fire you for this?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Yeah, look. The Founding Fathers knew this. If you read through the Declaration of Independence they dedicated their lives, their prosperity, their sacred honor to each other. And every one of them was gone after by the system, by the king, but they stayed with it because they did what was right. And you have to look at this, at this point in time and say what type of world are you leaving your children and your grandchildren? This is never about you. This is never about me. This is about the children and the grandchildren. And whatever we leave them, they're going to essentially be stuck with it. If we abandon them and the founding fathers did not abandon us, then we are responsible for allowing this to happen. It's on us, so there's no easy way.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
I mean, putting this book out, “Is COVID-19 a Bioweapon?” I'm not going to get pats on the back. The U.S. federal government is not going to say, "Richard, that was a good thing for you to do. Thank you for doing that. Thank you for being an honest, upstanding scientist, physician, attorney." They're not going to do that. I don't expect them to do that because you know what? These people committed crimes and criminals, real, real honest to God criminals don't want you to know what they've done. If you want to know if somebody is a criminal and I'd check to see whether they tell you about what's happened and if they do, they're probably not a criminal, right? Criminals hide stuff. These people have been hiding stuff for decades and they don't want you to know about it, and they don't want you to talk about it.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
You're going to have to accept responsibility that if you're a student, you may not go to that college you wanted to go to because they've decided they want to force things on you. I did a presentation in Fort Worth, a little bit more than a week ago here now. And this mother, so I was done and I was leaving, and I had security around me and I can see this woman in the back of my eye running down the street after me. And I thought, I don't think she's here to attack me. And I could see, she was, so I stopped.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
She ran up to me and she said, "I just I have to tell you, my son just gave up a $200,000 sports scholarship to attend the four-year college that he’d always wanted to go to." And they were going to go to an in-state college, which wasn't going to be nearly the glamour, and he was given up $200,000, right? But they made that decision. They made the decision. This comes with hard
questions that really kind of shakes the core of us, but it also answers that question to that sign that I'm sure you've seen copies of as well as I have. If you ever wondered what you would have done in 1930s Germany? Today, you know.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
That's right. So, I want to go a little deeper in the legal proceedings that you're participating in or planning on overseas in Italy and in the U.S. and give us an update on what they can be. And I think you mentioned the bioweapons treaty. I think that was authored by Francis Boyle, who I've interviewed a few times already last year. He was my first insights. I mean, we kind of blew the whistle on gain-of-function in February of 2020, which was early on, or definitely early on. But he authored that specifically, the penalty is not death interestingly, if you violate that treaty. It's a lifetime imprisonment, because he's not a fan of the death penalty.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
But is that the primary treaty that you're going to be looking at or is it the Nuremberg or the Helsinki? And what is the plan and where are we at and what are your projections as to the timing on it?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Yeah, so to answer the latter part, the time plan is for anybody who's been an attorney or I guess, gone to court, where the answer it's always up to the judges how long they want to take.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah, yeah, sure.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
You have that nice little privilege. So, it's actually all of the above. It has to do with the Biological Weapons Convention treaty. It has to do with the Nuremberg Code. It has to do with the Declaration of Helsinki. It has to do with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as any other statutes that come up.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
But what you do initially is you file cases in the International Criminal Court (ICC). And the United States seems to think that just because it didn't ratify the ICC that U.S. citizens cannot be held accountable, and that would be incorrect. Although it's a nice fantasy if you're living in that world, and you think that's what's going to protect you.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
The court then and there's several cases that have already been filed with the ICC. The court gets to decide then what it wants to do if it wants to launch an investigation, and at this stage of the process, these people are referred to as perpetrators. Not exactly a very nice term when you think about it. And the goal would be to get the ICC to do their responsibility and recognize their place in history because-
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
And what does the ICC stand for?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
International Criminal Court. It's in the Hague.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
And you do believe that they are impartial and objective, or have they been corrupted like much of the other judicial systems?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
I believe that there have still, look, if they're totally corrupt then there's not much we can do about that, from that point of view, okay? But that doesn't mean you've never seen me if you knew me as an individual, you realize I don't roll over on anything. This is where I proudly recognize my Viking blood heritage, bloodline and Vikings just don't roll over for you. I don't think any Viking ever rolled over for anybody. And I'm certainly not going to be the first one bloodline to do so.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
So, it doesn't really matter how long this takes or to whom this has to go, but I'm a firm believer that there are enough good, honest people on this planet that if the people communicate and work together, the tide on this can and will be turned. There's a group of Italian physicians that are meeting next week that I did a recording earlier for today. That has been sent to them, so they have enough time to put subtitles in Italian on the bottom of it. And it's a group of Italian physicians who feel like they're going up against this massive part of the Italian government and being coerced in the same way that we feel in this country.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
And I'll tell you that this is the same story all over the world. All the people that I talked to in the different countries that I've been working with have the same feeling. They're coerced. Their citizens are being bribed, which, as a side note, anytime the government has to bribe the people to do it, you have to say, "If it was really a good idea-
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
They'd pay for it.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
"-why would you have to bribe me? I wouldn't be lining up for it." I'm the ultimate, I think, research scientist. After 53 years, I really feel very strongly about being a scientist-physician. And I am incredibly offended when Anthony Fauci says he is science because he's not. I mean, I've met some of the very best people in science. I've been privileged to be trained by some of the very best people in the history of science and hopefully, would do them honor in the end.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
But the perspective that a scientist has to manipulate and bribe real science. If these things, if these drug vaccines actually worked and there was scientific evidence, I'd be on here telling you to take it. What you're hearing me tell you is, "Don't take it." These things are biological weapons. They're nothing more than a genetic code of a biological weapon that was made, that was paid for, and put together by nefarious people.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Just curious, prior to COVID, were you a believer in vaccines? And were you up-to-date on your immunizations?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Yeah, I'm not anti-vax.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
That's what I thought. And you've gotten them?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Yeah. Many of them. I mean, I don't get influenza vaccines, because-
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
It doesn't make sense.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Look, I mean, it changes year after year after year. I get exposed to people. I do what I did as a kid and then I develop my immune response to it, T-cells and antibodies and memory cells, and I'm good to go, okay. You know what I mean? I mean, my patients in hospitals have shared some of the worst diseases with me and pneumonias that I could ever not want to have gotten, but I survived it and, and moved forward because okay, functional immune system. I understand other people have immune problems and need to be cautious in other ways and should be so. But these vaccines are not doing anything for those individuals as well. No, I'm not anti-vaccine. I'm anti-stupid.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Okay. Good way to be. Well, it's interesting because Robert Malone, obviously the co-founder of the mRNA platform technology and Peter McCullough were both – I mean, Malone was vaccinologist and he reached a different conclusion on this, this whole process of what they're doing, so. And you're in his camp. So, you've done a great job by putting this all together. So, you're a wealth of information, and I'm just so excited that you're leading the charge to fight this thing in legal terms. How many other attorneys are joining you in this process?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
So, because of the fact that I'm the expert witness for the ICC, I cannot be the attorney filing the case. You can't be the attorney and the expert witness. It just turns out I'm one of the expert
witnesses, so there are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 attorneys and possibly, a seventh attorney. So, there are currently six countries coalescing for a joint case that they'll be able to tell more about. The Italians have their own case. I know that I've been working with several attorneys in the U.S. to try to get cases going on in this country.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
I've been very successful in getting a lot of exemptions for people using the form that I put on FlemingMethod.com. But there's only one of me, and I can't do this for all of you, so I put this exemption on there with bold font that says, "Insert your material here."
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah, yeah, great. Well, that's a great service, because a lot of people will use it. But ultimately, they may have to accept the consequences that they may have to decide not to attend the scholastic institution, which could be a blessing in disguise, even that one student who had denied or not accepted his $200,000 scholarship. I mean, it may have been an institution that could have ruined them for life. You don't know, especially what they're teaching in colleges nowadays. It's just, it's not the same when we went to school. It really wasn't.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Dramatically changed, dramatically changed.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
If you look at the funding of this vaccine, and this virus and the people blocking the drugs. And you ask the question, “Who's giving a lot of money to these universities?” Many times it's the same people. So, why would you want to go to a university that is being funded by people who are trying to manipulate you? And if they're manipulating you, they're manipulating your family, too. So, I realized that the kids going to university are in their 20s, but they're adults. And they care about their parents, they care about their siblings, they care about their grandparents and other people who are close to them and family and friends. And I don't think they want to see their friends manipulated any more than anyone else.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
One of the things I do want to make a comment on now is for the people that have not been vaccinated. When you're looking at the people that have been vaccinated, step back for just a moment and recognize that many of those people got vaccinated because they were told that this was the only way to protect the people that they loved. And what we need to do is have the intelligence and the compassion necessary to look at those individuals and say, "I got it. No judgment." If there's a shedding problem or something like that that you're dealing with, there are treatments that are available that you can look at. I put those on the website, too.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
But you come together, support those people because they were just doing what they thought was right. And for many of them, they are so scared, and they have been made so scared. By the way, what type of country, what type of world, but what type of country spends so much effort frightening the blazes out of its citizens? That says something.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Well, fear is one of the most absolutely powerful and motivating triggers for the limbic system, and it is absolutely essential if they're going to implement this strategy.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Yeah. Amazing.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
It's the most critical part of the propaganda campaign, is fear. There's no question about it.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Yeah. May the odds be ever in your favor.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah. So it's no surprise, and I hold no judgment against those individuals either because this is, as I said, it's likely, it probably, it is the most effective propaganda campaign in the history of humanity. And it's hard to blame someone when they're under that type of assault. I mean, an individual isn't enlightened enough to seek informed opinions elsewhere and they're just listening to the media. And the people they trust and the politicians and public health officials, they're going to get a consistent message that convinces them that they need to get this. And how could you argue with that? I mean, that's a rational choice, so.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Yeah. The next time somebody tries to force you or your friends to get vaccinated, I would like your listeners to go to the website and tell them to pull out the EUA documents, and have the people read those EUA documents and prove that there's a benefit to these vaccines. And then, I want them to go to the book, “Is COVID-19 a Bioweapon?” And I want them to read the truth about where this came from.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah. Well, the book,” Is COVID-19 a Bioweapon?” But I think even more importantly, because, I've always, I've written a large number of books now. And it was always, before I wrote my first one, I was always reluctant to do it because I had the website and it says, "I don't want to write a book because it's out of date so soon." I mean, but by the time you've written and published it, I mean, things have changed so pretty dramatically in many cases.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
So, I think, in your case, I mean, it's great to have that as a resource and documentation of the fraud that's been going on. But your website is phenomenal, especially providing this form for people to at least have a hope of getting an exemption from these mandatory vaccines that are being forced upon them. So, thank you for doing that.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Thank you. Yeah, thank you.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah. And it's FlemingMethod.com?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Right. F-L-E-M-I-N-G M-E-T-H-O-D, no space in between dot-com, so just one M in Fleming, no stuttering.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah, yeah. There you go. It's good. It's very good. All right. Any last words?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
I'm sorry? You cut out for a moment.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
I'm sorry. Any last words that you'd like to share or comments?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
No, I think-
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Reinforce something?
Dr. Richard Fleming:
I think there's a lot of people that are very concerned that things have gone south, so to speak. And I'm actually encouraged. One of the things that I've noticed about being here in Dallas and in Texas, is that common sense has not died. And it may be that it's our most useful treatment for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. And the vaccines and everything going on is the common sense that people want. I know that this is, sometimes people think of it as a complex topic, because people weren't aware of viruses really that much before all of this happened. But what I've repeatedly gotten from people is don't dumb it down.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
It's not a matter of turning people into Ph.D.s, MDs or whatever, it's a matter of just being truthful and honest with them. And people have a real good capacity, when they get away from
all the nonsense happening to look at the truth and realize it's the truth and to listen to nonsense being thrown at them and realize that it's just garbage and manipulation. So, common sense is a real useful tool for everybody to have. That and compassion. Real compassion, not this fake-pretend compassion that people talk so much about.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah, I couldn't agree more, but unfortunately, it's a bit of a challenge to exercise common sense when you've been inundated with propaganda and it's actively engaged and responding to the fear of this constant pressure. And then compounded with in many communities being forced into isolation, which is another strategy for propaganda. They isolate people. And so it's not for the fear of contagion. This was done intentionally to amplify the propaganda impact.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
People from talking to each other, stop them exchanging ideas. Everybody knows that we used to, now I'm saying like, it's something that won't happen again, but it will. We used to frequently sit down and have conversations with families and friends where you'd argue back and forth and you discuss things. And I can't be the only person that would walk away from a conversation and go, "Well, I hadn't really thought about that. Let me think about that" because that's kind of a different point of view. But that exchange stopped when they quarantined people, when they isolated us, and then they put us in our homes. And they controlled what you could see on the Internet and on television, that stopped.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
Well, we've come far enough back out of it, that that exchange has started again, and people have had to fight, literally fight to get that information out. But it's that sharing of information and knowledge that is so critical to turning this around, and actually bringing all of this nonsense under control. Not just the virus, but the manipulation of people that has been going on and the lies and the deceit and the abuse of power and they used their money to do it. They used our lives to do it. They used our livelihoods to do it.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah. Well, it's probably one, probably, I believe it is that the most significant challenge on almost every one of us will face. It was forced upon us and requires a response one way or the other. And we're deeply appreciative of the work that you're committing to this to help those of us who aren't as skilled as you in these areas to compile the resources to address this in some way. So, thank you so much for what you've done.
Dr. Richard Fleming:
My pleasure. Thank you.




Day of the Planes: A 9/11 excerpt from ‘The Management of Savagery’


by Max Blumenthal


Video: 9/11 and the Global War on Terrorism


with Michel Chossudovsky



Global war on terror comes home


by Michael E. Deutsch


Post-9/11 militarization has cost $21 trillion


—here's where that money could have gone


with Jaisal Noor



The Doomsday Machine Still Exists


with Paul Jay and Daniel Ellsberg





The Vaccine Offers No Protection against the Virus:


COVID Will Prevail as Long as the Known Cures Are Against




by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts



Digital Tyranny and the Rockefeller-Gates WHO "Vaxx-Certificate


Passport": Towards a World War III Scenario


by Peter Koenig



The COVID Lies Are Crumbling Yet Forced Lockdowns & Vaccines


Are Still Being Openly Pushed


with Ryan Cristián

(audio, 2:53:41)



The Cause of COVID Deaths No One Wants to Talk About



by  Alliance for Natural Health


Governments focused on the virus itself, fighting it with drugs and vaccines or avoiding it with quarantines and isolation, but ignored the toxic exposures that degrade immune systems, greatly increasing the risk of serious complications and death from COVID.

EXPLOSIVE Truth About Vaccines & COVID w/Inventor Of mRNA Vaccine Technology
with Jimmy Dore and Robert Malone


mRNA Expert Speaks Out on the COVID Crisis
August 7, 2021

Summary of 1h10min video interview with Aga Wilson and Dr. Robert Malone:
When Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,1 spoke out about the risks of COVID-19 gene therapy vaccines in June 2021, he was surprised that the three-hour interview went viral. “It showed there was a huge thirst for information from people all over the world,” he said, speaking with Aga Wilson with Newsvoice.2

The podcast was erased from YouTube, and Malone quickly realized that his message, which he felt morally obliged to share, would not be heard via mainstream media.

“When it became clear to me that I would not be able to speak through mainstream media, I, together with my wife … made a conscious decision to reach out through alternative media and new media, and I’ve learned, from many, many podcasts and podcasters like yourself about the value of this new medium of podcasting,” he told Wilson.3

Experimental Vaccine Violates Bioethics Laws
With Malone’s impressive credentials, his grave concerns about COVID-19 vaccines have made many stop and listen, and people started writing to him about their own problems with censorship and the spectrum of adverse events with the vaccine. It all started, Malone said, with a long conversation with a physician in Canada, who poured his heart out about what he was experiencing in Canada treating patients with COVID-19 and adverse events after vaccination.

He reported them to authorities but was dismissed and told they weren’t related to the injection even though, in his clinical opinion, they were. With the mass vaccination campaign in full effect, Malone was also disturbed that it is considered OK by the government to entice children to get vaccinated by offering them free ice cream or doughnuts, and even allowing children to get vaccinated without their parents’ consent.

He soon ventured into the bioethics of the emergency use authorization (EUA) granted to COVID-19 vaccines. Experimentation without proper informed consent violates the Nuremberg Code,4 which spells out a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation.
This set of principles was developed to ensure the medical horrors discovered during the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II would never take place again, but in the current climate of extreme censorship, people are not being informed about the full risks of the vaccines — which are only beginning to be uncovered.

Further, due to the EUA, adults aren’t required to sign informed consent documents and, at the same time, aren’t being given a full disclosure of the risks that would normally be given during a clinical trial5 — and, at this point, anyone who receives the vaccine is participating as a research subject.

FDA Dismissed Malone’s Vaccine Warning
Through his professional career, Malone has worked closely with the U.S. government for many years. As such, he has kept an open dialogue with colleagues at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, with whom he discussed concerns about adverse events and the spike protein used in COVID-19 vaccines.

In its native form in SARS-CoV-2, the spike protein is responsible for the pathologies of the viral infection, and in its wild form it’s known to open the blood-brain barrier, cause cell damage (cytotoxicity) and, Malone said, “is active in manipulating the biology of the cells that coat the inside of your blood vessels — vascular endothelial cells, in part through its interaction with ACE2, which controls contraction in the blood vessels, blood pressure and other things.”6

Malone is well aware of the actions of spike protein, as he worked to identify an effective drug that worked by blocking the action of the COX-2 enzyme, which is a key inflammatory enzyme. In one of his papers, he laid out how the spike protein and another protein in the virus directly turn on COX-2 promoter in infected cells.

This awareness of the spike protein as a biologically active protein made him alert the FDA about the associated risks last fall. His FDA colleagues transferred his concerns to the FDA’s review branch, which dismissed his concerns, saying they did not believe the spike protein was biologically active and there wasn’t enough documentation otherwise. As history now reveals, they proceeded with the EUA.

It’s since been revealed that the spike protein on its own is enough to cause inflammation and damage to the vascular system, even independent of a virus.7

Plato’s Noble Lie: Three False ‘Truths’ Being Circulated
The concept of the noble lie was first described by Socrates and Plato.8 It refers to the notion that, in the case of high-status individuals or designated public leaders, it’s acceptable to lie if the lie is made in the interest of the common good.

But in the modern day, in the midst of an unprecedented global pandemic in which government, Big Pharma, media and Big Tech have become integrated, we’re now seeing the noble lie “play out in a way that Plato could never have imagined,” Malone said.

Take Dr. Anthony Fauci — whose expertise has been held as indisputable by mainstream media since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. He’s been caught lying to both the public and the U.S. Senate on a number of issues, but nothing has been done about it.

Malone outlined three main logic elements — each false — that are being propagated as part of the grander noble lie. Any discussion that challenges or goes against these three elements is censored:9

1. Mitigating death and disease from COVID requires herd immunity — This is not true, as it’s possible to reduce death and disease from COVID-19 using medications like ivermectin and many others, including anti-inflammatories.
2. The only way to reach herd immunity is through universal vaccination — This is another lie. As Malone says, “Herd immunity is most often reached through natural infection.” Further, there’s no solid data on whether COVID injections reduce transmissibility, which changes depending on the variant anyway. So the idea that we must reach a certain percentage of herd immunity in the population to end the pandemic “fails the logic test.”
Even the World Health Organization advises people who are vaccinated to continue wearing masks due to the delta variant because “vaccine alone won’t stop community transmission.”10 “Vaccines will not get us to herd immunity,” Malone said.11
3. The vaccines are completely safe — This is another lie, as it’s well known that the vaccines are not completely safe. Malone listed several adverse events that are already raising red flags. Another important point: Censorship prevents full comprehension of these risks.



Coagulation problems

Female reproductive health concerns

Miscarriage in the first and second trimesters (this has not yet been confirmed), Thrombocytopenia (dropping blood platelets)

Brain and nervous system disorders

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS)


Data Do Not Support Vaccination of Children
Malone believes that children and young adults up to age 30 or 35 should not be vaccinated, noting that the total number of COVID-19 deaths for birth- to 18-year-olds during the entire pandemic is 386.12 Children reap little benefit from this vaccine, not only because they’re at very low risk from COVID-19, but also because, according to Peter Doshi, Ph.D., a significant portion of U.S. children are already immune and aren’t at risk of infection to begin with.
Doshi cited Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data showing an estimated 23% of children under the age of 4 and 42% of those ages 5 through 17 have already had a SARS-CoV-2 infection and now have robust and long-lasting immunity.

The rationale has been that children should be vaccinated in order to protect the elderly, but this only has merit if the vaccine has no toxicity, which isn’t the case with COVID-19 injections, so the justification fails miserably. “We need to carefully think about who gets the benefit from vaccination, and focus vaccination on them,” Malone said.

For people who aren’t at high risk, it’s hard to justify exposing them to risk from a COVID-19 injection. Doshi similarly pointed out that the FDA has no basis on which to grant COVID-19 vaccines emergency use authorization for children in the first place, as COVID-19 is not an emergency in children. The threat this infection poses to children is negligible and no more serious than that of the common cold or flu.

The Power of Podcasts
Malone has been speaking out about the problems of censorship and the fact that physicians and scientists who raise concerns that go against the official narrative can be damaged professionally. He even heard an unsubstantiated report in Spain that a physician who advocates for alternative treatment strategies can be declared mentally incompetent and institutionalized.

“This is profoundly worrying,” he said, “but we’re seeing it all over the world … It’s extremely difficult to speak against this narrative.”13 Malone would know. Just five days after he publicly shared his concerns about the dangers of COVID-19 injections, his name and scientific credentials, including those relating to mRNA vaccines, were removed from Wikipedia.

Through his remaining contacts with the government, Malone is still trying to share this powerful insider information and data with those in positions of power who will listen. He comes from a place of caring and empathy and believes this, not fighting the opposition, is key.

He’s also speaking out via podcasts, which he believes are “extremely valuable” and “represent a threat to the narrative.” Instead of worrying about being deleted from social media or speaking to a reporter who may “cut and splice my words to fit some narrative that they want to impose … podcasts work. They get out to people.”

Malone is privy to the opposition he’s up against, but as a highly ethical physician committed to integrity — and preeminently qualified to speak on this topic — he feels it’s his duty to share the truth. It will take this and many others like him speaking out to counter the false narrative being forced upon us as the truth.

If we give up, we’ll continue down this rabbit hole in which misinformation becomes fact and believing it is the only choice to remain a part of society. This isn’t an option, which is why sharing data and information as Malone is doing is a heroic action that we can all take part in.

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) recently posted more than 50 video presentations from the pay-for-view Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination held online October 16 to 18, 2020, and made them available to everyone for free.

The conference's theme was "Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century" and it featured physicians, scientists and other health professionals, human rights activists, faith community leaders, constitutional and civil rights attorneys, authors and parents of vaccine injured children talking about vaccine science, policy, law and ethics and infectious diseases, including coronavirus and COVID-19 vaccines.

In December 2020, a U.K. company published false and misleading information about NVIC and its conference, which prompted NVIC to open up the whole conference for free viewing. The conference has everything you need to educate yourself and protect your personal freedoms and liberties with respect to your health.

Don’t miss out on this incredible opportunity. I was a speaker at this empowering conference and urge you to watch these video presentations before they’re censored and taken away by the technocratic elite.

- Sources and References:



“Shockingly, CDC Now Lists Vaccinated Deaths as Unvaccinated”


analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

(September 15, 2021)


Story at-a-glance

·         According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, you’re not counted as fully vaccinated until a full 14 days have passed since your second injection in the case of Pfizer or Moderna, or 14 days after your first dose of Janssen, despite the fact that over 80% of deaths after the vaccines occur in this window. How convenient

·         Anyone who dies within the first 14 days post-injection is counted as an unvaccinated death. Not only does this inaccurately inflate the unvaccinated death toll, but it also hides the real dangers of the COVID shots, as the vast majority of deaths from these shots occur within the first two weeks

·         The CDC also has two different sets of testing guidelines — one for vaccinated patients and another for the unvaccinated. If you’re unvaccinated, CDC guidance says to use a cycle threshold (CT) of 40, known to result in false positives. If you’re vaccinated, they recommend using a CT of 28 or less, which minimizes the risk of false positives

·         The CDC also hides vaccine failures and props up the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” narrative by only counting breakthrough cases that result in hospitalization or death

·         Hospitals are still also reporting non-COVID related illnesses as COVID-19


While public health officials and mainstream media claim the COVID-19 pandemic is now “a pandemic of the unvaccinated,”1 we now know this claim is based on highly misleading statistics.


In a July 16, 2021, White House press briefing,2 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky claimed that “over 97% of people who are entering the hospital right now are unvaccinated.” A few weeks later, in an August 5, 2021, statement, she inadvertently revealed how that statistic actually came about.3


As it turns out, the CDC was looking at hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021 — a timeframe during which the vast majority of the U.S. population were still unvaccinated.4


But that’s not the case at all now. The CDC is also playing with statistics in other ways to create the false and inaccurate impression that unvaccinated people make up the bulk of infections, hospitalizations and deaths. For example, we now find out the agency is counting anyone who died within the first 14 days post-injection as unvaccinated.


Not only does this inaccurately inflate the unvaccinated death toll, but it also hides the real dangers of the COVID shots, as the vast majority of deaths from these shots occur within the first two weeks.5 Now their deaths are counted as unvaccinated deaths rather than being counted as deaths due to vaccine injury or COVID-19 breakthrough infections!


How CDC Counts Breakthrough Cases

According to the CDC,6 you’re not counted as fully vaccinated until a full 14 days have passed since your second injection in the case of Pfizer or Moderna, or 14 days after your first dose of Janssen. This is how the CDC defines a vaccine breakthrough case:


“… a vaccine breakthrough infection is defined as the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen in a respiratory specimen collected from a person ≥14 days after they have completed all recommended doses of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized COVID-19 vaccine.”


In other words, if you’ve received one dose of Pfizer or Moderna and develop symptomatic COVID-19, get admitted to the hospital and/or die from COVID, you’re counted as an unvaccinated case. If you’ve received two doses and get ill within 14 days, you’re still counted as an unvaccinated case.

The problem with this is that over 80% of hospitalizations and deaths appear to be occurring among those who have received the jabs, but this reality is hidden by the way cases are defined and counted. A really clever and common strategy of the CDC during the pandemic has been to change the definitions and goalposts so it supports their nefarious narrative.


For example, the CDC has quietly changed the definition of “vaccine,” apparently in an attempt to validate calling the COVID mRNA gene therapies vaccines. In an August 26, 2021, archived version7 of vaccine, the CDC defines it as a “product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”


But a few days later, a new definition appeared on the CDC’s website,8 which now says a vaccine is a “preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” The differences in the definitions are subtle but distinct: The first one defined a vaccine as something that will “produce immunity.”


But, since the COVID-19 vaccines are not designed to stop infection but, rather, to only lessen the degree of infection, it becomes obvious that the new definition was created to cover the COVID vaccines.


Different Testing Guidelines for Vaxxed and Unvaxxed

It’s not just the CDC’s definition of a breakthrough case that skews the data. Even more egregious and illogical is the fact that the CDC even has two different sets of testing guidelines — one for vaccinated patients and another for the unvaccinated.


Since the beginning of the pandemic, the CDC has recommended a PCR test cycle threshold (CT) of 40.9 This flies in the face of scientific consensus, which has long been that a CT over 35 will produce 97% false positives,10 essentially rendering the test useless.11,12,13


In mid-May 2021, the CDC finally lowered its recommended CT count, but only for patients who have received one or more COVID shots.14 So, if you have received a COVID injection, the CDC’s guidelines call for your PCR test to be run at a CT of 28 or less. If you are unvaccinated, your PCR test is to be run at a CT of 40, which grossly overestimates the true prevalence of infection.


The end result is that unvaccinated individuals who get tested are FAR more prone to get false positives, while those who have received the jab are more likely to get an accurate diagnosis of infection.


Only Hospitalization and Death Count if You’re COVID Jabbed

Even that’s not all. The CDC also hides vaccine failures and props up the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” narrative by only counting breakthrough cases that result in hospitalization or death.


In other words, if you got your second COVID shot more than 14 days ago and you develop symptoms, you do not count as a breakthrough case unless you’re admitted to the hospital and/or die from COVID-19 in the hospital, even if you test positive. So, to summarize, COVID breakthrough cases count only if all of the following apply:


The patient received the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna shot at least 14 days ago (or one dose in case of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose injection)

The patient tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 using a CT of 28 or less, which avoids false positives

The patient is admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 and/or dies in the hospital


Vaccinated Probably Make Up Bulk of Hospitalizations

If vaccinated and unvaccinated were not treated with such varying standards, we’d probably find that the vaccinated now make up the bulk of hospitalizations, making the COVID pandemic one of the vaccinated. An August 30, 2021, exposé by The Epoch Times reveals what’s really happening on the front lines:15


“After a battery of testing, my friend was diagnosed with pancreatitis. But it was easier for the hospital bureaucracy to register the admission as a COVID case … The mainstream media is reporting that severe COVID cases are mainly among unvaccinated people … Is that what’s really going on?

It’s certainly not the case in Israel, the first country to fully vaccinate a majority of its citizens against the virus. Now it has one of the highest daily infection rates and the majority of people catching the virus (77 percent to 83 percent, depending on age) are already vaccinated, according to data collected by the Israeli government …

After admission, I spoke to the nurse on the COVID ward … The nurse told me that she had gotten both vaccines but she was feeling worried: ‘Two thirds of my patients are fully vaccinated,’ she said. How can there be such a disconnect between what the COVID ward nurse told me and the mainstream media reports?”


The heart of the problem is that the U.S. is not even trying to achieve an accurate count. As noted by The Epoch Times, “the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have publicly acknowledged that they do not have accurate data.”


So, when you hear that cases are rising, and that most of them are unvaccinated, you need to ask: “Are these people who have had one vaccine and gotten sick, two vaccines and gotten sick, or no vaccines at all? Without more details, it is impossible to know what is really going on,” The Epoch Times says.16

All we do know, according to one doctor who spoke with The Epoch Times, is “the vaccines are not as effective as public health officials told us they would be. ‘This is a product that’s not doing what it’s supposed to do. It’s supposed to stop transmission of this virus and it’s not doing that.’”


Counting Non-COVID Illness as COVID Cases

On top of all of that, hospitals are still also reporting non-COVID related illnesses as COVID. As reported by The Epoch Times:17


“Health authorities around the world have been doing this since the beginning of the COVID crisis. For example, a young man in Orange County, Florida who died in a motorcycle crash last summer was originally considered a COVID death by state health officials …

And a middle-aged construction worker fell off a ladder in Croatia and was also counted as a death from COVID … To muddy the waters further, even people who test negative for COVID are sometimes counted as COVID deaths.

Consider the case of 26-year-old Matthew Irvin, a father of three from Yamhill County, Oregon. As reported by KGW8 News, Irvin went to the ER with stomach pain, nausea, and diarrhea on July 5, 2020. But instead of admitting him to the hospital, the doctors sent him home.

Five days later, on July 10, 2020, Irvin died. Though his COVID test came back negative two days after his death and his family told reporters and public health officials that no one Irvin had been around had any COVID symptoms, the medical examiner allegedly told the family that an autopsy was not necessary, listing his death as a coronavirus case. It took the Oregon Health Authority two and a half months to correct the mistake.

In an even more striking example of overcounting COVID deaths, a nursing home in New Jersey that only has 90 beds was wrongly reported as having 753 deaths from COVID. According to a spokesman, they had fewer than twenty deaths. In other words, the number of deaths was over-reported by 3,700 percent.”


No Need to Fear the Delta Variant if You’re Unvaccinated

In a June 29, 2021, interview,18 Fauci called the Delta variant “a game-changer” for unvaccinated people, warning it will devastate the unvaccinated population while vaccinated individuals are protected against it. Alas, in the real world, the converse is turning out to be true, as the Delta variant is running wild primarily among those who got the COVID jab.


The Delta variant contains three different mutations,

all in the spike protein. This allows this variant to


evade the immune responses in those who have received


the COVID jabs, but not those who have natural immunity,


which is much broader.


In a June 30, 2021, appearance on Fox News (video above), epidemiologist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough pointed out that “It is very clear from the U.K. Technical Briefing19 that was published June 18 that the vaccine provides no protection against the Delta variant.”20


The reason for this is because the Delta variant contains three different mutations, all in the spike protein. This allows this variant to evade the immune responses in those who have received the COVID jabs, but not those who have natural immunity, which is much broader.


Even so, the Delta variant is far milder than previous variants, according to the U.K.’s June 18, 2021, Technical Briefing.21 In it, they present data showing the Delta variant is more contagious but far less deadly and easier to treat. As McCullough told Fox News:


“Whether you get the vaccine or not, patients will get some very mild symptoms like a cold and they can be easily managed … Patients who have severe symptoms or at high risk, we can use simple drug combinations at home and get them through the illness. So, there’s no reason now to push vaccinations.”


Contrast that with the following statement made by President Biden during a CNN town hall meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio, in late July 2021:22


“We have a pandemic for those who haven't gotten a vaccination. It's that basic, that simple. If you're vaccinated, you're not going to be hospitalized, not going to the ICU unit, and not going to die. You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations."


However, Dr. Leana Wen, an emergency doctor and visiting professor of health policy and management at George Washington University's Milken School of Public Health in Washington, D.C., contradicted the president, saying he had led the American astray by telling them you don’t need a mask if you’re vaccinated, or that you can’t get it or transmit it. As reported by CNN Health:23


“In particular, Wen took issue with Biden's incorrect claims that you cannot contract Covid-19 or the Delta variant if you are vaccinated. ‘I was actually disappointed,’ Wen said. ‘I actually thought he was answering questions as if it were a month ago. He's not really meeting the realities of what's happening on the ground. I think he may have led people astray.’"


CNN added that Wen had told their political commentator Anderson Cooper that “many unknown answers remain related to Covid-19, and that it is still not known how well protected vaccinated individuals are from mild illness … [or] if you're vaccinated, could you still be contagious to other people.”


Vaccinated Patients Flood Hospitals Around the World

The U.K. data showing the Delta variant is far milder than previous SARS-CoV-2 viruses deflates the claim that avoiding severe illness is a sign that the shots are working. Since the Delta variant typically doesn’t cause severe illness in the first place, it doesn’t make sense to attribute milder illness to the shot.

But if Delta is the mildest coronavirus variant yet, why are so many “vaccinated” people ending up in the hospital? While we still do not have clear confirmation, this could be a sign that antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) is at work. Alternatively, it could be that vaccine injuries are being misreported as breakthrough cases.


Whatever the case may be, real-world data from areas with high COVID jab rates show a disturbing trend. For example, August 1, 2021, the director of Israel’s Public Health Services, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, announced half of all COVID-19 infections were among the fully vaccinated.24 Signs of more serious disease among fully vaccinated are also emerging, she said, particularly in those over the age of 60.


A few days later, August 5, 2021, Dr. Kobi Haviv, director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, appeared on Channel 13 News, reporting that 95% of severely ill COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated, and that they make up 85% to 90% of COVID-related hospitalizations overall.25

In Scotland, official data on hospitalizations and deaths show 87% of those who have died from COVID-19 in the third wave that began in early July were vaccinated.26


In Gibraltar, which has a 99% COVID jab compliance rate, COVID cases have risen by 2,500% since June 1, 2021,27 and in Iceland, where over 82% have received the shots, 77% of new COVID cases are among the fully vaccinated.28


Data from the U.K. show a similar trend among those over the age of 50. In this age group, partially and fully “vaccinated” people account for 68% of hospitalizations and 70% of COVID deaths.29


A CDC investigation of an outbreak in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, between July 6, 2021, through July 25, 2021, found 74% of those who received a diagnosis of COVID19, and 80% of hospitalizations, were among the fully vaccinated.30,31 Most, but not all, had the Delta variant.


The CDC also found that fully vaccinated individuals who contract the infection have as high a viral load in their nasal passages as unvaccinated individuals who get infected.32 The same was found in a British study, a preprint of which was posted mid-August 2021.33,34 This means the vaccinated are just as infectious as the unvaccinated.


Interestingly, a Lancet preprint study35 that examined breakthrough infections in health care workers in Vietnam who received the AstraZeneca COVID shot found the “viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020.”


What’s more, they found no correlation between vaccine-induced neutralizing antibody levels and viral loads or the development of symptoms. According to the authors:


“Breakthrough Delta variant infections are associated with high viral loads, prolonged PCR positivity, and low levels of vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies, explaining the transmission between the vaccinated people.”


Not All Vaccinated Are Confirmed Vaccinated

As if all of that weren’t enough, there’s yet one more confounder. Just because you got the COVID shot does not mean you’ve been confirmed as having gotten the shot. You’re only confirmed “vaccinated” if your COVID injection is added to your medical record, and this sometimes doesn’t happen if you’re going to a temporary vaccination clinic, a drive-through or pharmacy, for example. As reported by CNN:36


“If you are among the countless people who didn't get the doses at a primary care doctor's office, there may not be any record of the vaccination on file with your doctor.”


To actually count as a “confirmed vaccinated” individual, you must send your vaccination card to your primary care physician’s office and have them add it to your electronic medical record. If you got the shot at a pharmacy, you’ll need to verify that they forwarded your proof of vaccination to your doctor. Primary care offices are then responsible for sharing their patients’ immunization data with the state’s immunization information system.

Patient-recorded proof of vaccination is only accepted for influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, not COVID-19 injections.37 What this all means is that, say you got the shot several weeks ago at a drive-through vaccination clinic and get admitted to the hospital with COVID symptoms. Unless your COVID shot status has actually been added into the medical system, you will not count as “vaccinated.”

This too can skew the statistics, because we know the CDC ascertains vaccination status by matching SARS-CoV-2 case surveillance and CAIR2 data using person-level identifiers and algorithms.38


As noted by John Zurlo, division director of infectious disease at Thomas Jefferson University, “the lack of reliable vaccine records complicates efforts to precisely understand vaccine effectiveness and determine how many local hospitalizations and deaths are resulting from COVID-19 breakthrough infections.”39


We’re in the Largest Clinical Trial in Medical History

In closing, it’s worth remembering that the COVID injection campaign is part and parcel of a clinical trial. As noted Dr. Lidiya Angelova in a recent Genuine Prospect article:40


“Many people are unaware that they are participating in the largest clinical trial test of our times. It is because World Health Organization, healthcare authorities, politicians, celebrities, and journalists promote the experimental medical treatments (wrongly called COVID-19 vaccines) as safe and efficient while in fact these treatments are in early clinical research stage.

It means that there is not enough data for such claims and that the people who participate are test subject.”


As shown in a graph on Genuine Prospect, under normal circumstances, clinical research follows a strict protocol that begins with tests on cell cultures. After that comes tests on animals, then limited human testing in four phases. In Phase 1 of human testing, up to 100 people are included and followed anywhere from one week to several months.


Phase 2 typically includes several hundred participants and lasts up to two years. In Phase 3, several hundred to 3,000 participants are tested upon for one to four years. Phase 4 typically includes several thousand individuals who are followed for at least one year or longer. After each phase, the data is examined to assess effectiveness and adverse reactions.


The timelines for these stages and phases were not followed for the COVID “vaccines.” Most Phase 3 trials concluded by the end of 2020, and everyone who got the shots since their rollout under emergency use authorization is part of a Phase 4 clinical trial, whether they realize it or not.41 And since the trials are not completed, you simply cannot make definitive claims about safety, especially long-term safety. As noted by Angelova:42


“When I worked at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) … I went to the course Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Clinical Research … The first rule we learnt was ‘Clinical research must be ethical’ … All ethical aspects of clinical research are dismissed with the COVID-19 vaccines.

People should know that nobody can require such to participate in everyday activities like using public transportation, shopping, going to school and even hospital. People should know that they should not be punished for refusing to take the experimental medical treatments.

COVID-19 vaccines mass use and COVID-19 measures are an infringe[ment] of the Articles 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 25, 27, 28 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).”


Sources and References









‘ClinicalTrials.gov’ is a database of privately and publicly funded clinical studies conducted around the world


by the U.S. National Library of Medicine


The Corporatization of American Science


with Chris Hedges



Massachusetts coronavirus breakthrough cases jump 4,415 last week,


more than 600 fully vaccinated people a day


by Rick Sobey


Is There Graphene Oxide In The Covid Injections? The Last American


Vagabond Interviews Whitney Webb


with Ryan Christian and Whitney Webb



Video: Graphene Oxide: A Toxic Substance in the Vial of the COVID-


19 mRNA Vaccine?


with Ricardo Delgado and Prof Michel Chossudovsky






“Were the notorious ‘Dancing Israelis’ 9/11 plotters, spies,


or just common scam artists?”





Witness in ex-Israel PM’s trial killed in plane crash



Greece probes crash that killed witness in Netanyahu trial



Newly Released FBI Docs Shed Light


on Apparent Mossad Foreknowledge of 9/11 Attacks




Holocaust in Israel: Leaked Call with Pfizer Scientist Admits


Israelis are Lab Rats for COVID Shots



by Brian Shilhavy



Israeli TV recently exposed a leaked Zoom call with Pfizer Vice President and Chief Scientist, Dr. Philip Dormitzer, who stated that because Pfizer had an exclusive agreement with the Israeli Minister of Health to use only Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccines exclusively, Israel was the laboratory of the world, and that by looking at the high percentage of Israel's population that is now vaccinated, they can predict what will happen in the U.S. a couple of months later.

An Israeli doctor was also interviewed on Israeli TV recently stating that the vaccine is not working, as 90% of the hospitalizations are among those fully vaccinated, and many of them seriously.








“It’s Happening Now But People Don’t See It –

Roger Waters on Challenging Authority”


with Roger Waters



9/6/21 Magnus Panvidya on the Upcoming Day of Antiwar Protests - The Scott Horton Show


with Scott Horton and Magnus Panvidya

(audio, 35:15)


Living With Vietnam and Afghanistan: It’s Not What You Did Then, But What You Will Do Now


by Camillo Mac Bica


The Activation Tour


with James Corbett



Derrick Broze and Miriam Gomez of The Conscious Resistance join us today to talk about The Activation Tour, a whirlwind 28-city tour that they’re engaged in to foster activism and spread a message of empowerment across the US.


From ‘political correctness’ to critical race theory:

How the right manufactures its boogeymen


with Jaisal Noor



Racist Stereotypes About Africa in the U.S. Media Have Long Driven


the Rape and Plunder of the Continent—But Where is the Outcry?


by Jeremy Kuzmarov


The US is turning oil-rich Nigeria into a proxy for its Africa wars


by TJ Coles

Top of Form

Bottom of Form





 “Never Forget: 9/11 and the 20 Year War on Terror”



Creative Commons Webinar

(September 11, 2021)


This webinar is co-sponsored by: The Coalition for Civil Freedoms Historians for Peace and Democracy United for Peace and Justice World BEYOND War Project Censored Veterans For Peace CovertAction Magazine Military Families Speak Out On Earth Peace National Network Opposing The Militarization of Youth.

Join us today as we reflect on the lessons of 9/11 and the lessons of the 20 year Global War on Terror. We’ll hear testimonials from: John Kiriakou, Vijay Prashad, Sam Al-Arian, Medea Benjamin, Jodie Evans, Assal Rad, David Swanson, Kathy Kelly, Matthew Hoh, Danny Sjursen, Kevin Danaher, Ray McGovern, Mickey Huff, Chris Agee, Norman Solomon, Pat Alviso, Rick Jahnkow, Larry Wilkerson, and Moustafa Bayoumi In the name of freedom, and of vengeance, the United States invaded and occupied Afghanistan. We stayed for 20 years. With lies of ‘weapons of mass destruction' a majority of the country was convinced to invade and occupy Iraq, the worst foreign policy decision of the modern era. The Executive Branch was given sweeping authority to make war across borders and without limits. The conflict in the Middle East expanded under both Republican and Democratic Presidents, leading to US wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and more. Trillions of dollars were spent. Millions of lives were lost. We created the greatest migration and refugee crisis since World War II. 9/11 was also used as an excuse to change the relationship of the US government to its citizens. In the name of safety the national security state was given expansive surveillance powers, threatening privacy and civil liberties. The Department of Homeland Security was created and with it ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Words like ‘enhanced interrogation,’ a euphemism for torture entered the American lexicon and the Bill of Rights was tossed aside. After the events of September 11th, 2001, “Never Forget” became a common expression in the United States. Unfortunately, it was not only used to remember and honor the dead. Like “remember the Maine” and “remember the Alamo,” “never forget” was also used as a rallying cry to war. 20 years after 9/11 we are still living in the age of the ‘War on Terror.’ We must never forget the lessons of 9/11 or the lessons of the Global War on Terror, lest we risk repeating the pain, death, and tragedy of the past 20 years.


False Flags: The Secret History of Al Qaeda

Part 1


with James Corbett



Day of the Planes: A 9/11 excerpt from ‘The Management of Savagery’


by Max Blumenthal


9/11 and the Politics of Fear and Self-Preservation


by Whitney Webb


We will either be remembered as a country that took freedom and liberty for all seriously or we will be remembered as a nation of cowards who, driven by fear, were willing to deprive this group, then that group, of their freedom — before losing that freedom entirely.


The Twenty Year Shadow of 9/11: U.S. Complicity in the Terror


Spectacle and the Urgent Need to End It


by Aaron Good, Ben Howard and Peter Dale Scott


Part 1: How the U.S. Used Radical Islam and 9/11 to Advance Imperialism and Override the Constitution

This is Part One of a three-part re-evaluation of 9/11 in light of startling new evidence that may change many minds about the so-called “craziness” of those who have refused to accept the “official” government story of this traumatic and defining event, which has so tragically misdirected U.S. policy for the past 20 years.


The Twenty Year Shadow of 9/11 (Part 2): Why Did Key U.S. Officials


Protect the Alleged 9/11 Plotters?


by Aaron Good, Ben Howard and Peter Dale Scott





How the US Trained the Afghan Mujahideen To Produce War




by Dan Cohen


Behind The Headlines’ Dan Cohen explains a little known effort to train Afghan Islamic fundamentalists in propaganda, and how that effort created a blueprint for the White Helmets in Syria.


US Military a Killing Machine! & How The Taliban Went


From Ally to Enemy


with John Pilger


How the CIA Waged War in Afghanistan



CIA Stories: Death Squads in Afghanistan






“America’s Longest War” Is Not Over!


by Brian Terrell


"Injections and Injunctions"


Part 2:


"Scientific, Technological Elite"


with Dr. Robert Malone


 “This Interview Could Save Your Life”


Part One


A Conversation with Dr. McCullough




 “This Interview Could Save Your Life”


Part Two


The Dangers of the Injections


with Dr. James McCullough






Breaking: Canada Announces Plan To Merge With Communist China

Social Credit Score


by Jamie White


Red State Rebellion! Majority Of US Governors Say NO!

To Biden Vax Mandate


with Ron Paul



Michael Moore on the 20 Year Anniversary of 9/11 | MSNBC Politics Nation w/ Rev. Al Sharpton







NEW Recordings BLOW UP Julian Assange Case


with Ryan Grim


“Organic Intellectuals”


with RJ Eskow and Richard Wolff


The Age of Manufactured Ignorance


with Chris Hedges and Henry A. Giroux






Is Fauci’s Botched Handling Of The AIDS Epidemic Being Repeated?


with Kim Iversen



NEW Docs Provide Damning Evidence Dr. Fauci, NIH FUNDED Wuhan Covid Research With TAXPAYER Dollars


with Kim Iversen



Stanford Faculty Smear Professor Who Accurately Summarized Data On Masks


by  Carl Heneghan and Martin Kulldorff


Open scientific discourse is especially critical during a public health crisis such as a pandemic. It is deeply troubling when scientists try to limit rather than engage in scientific debate.





Biden’s Vaccine Mandate Is Unconstitutional


by  Children's Health Defense Team


The Defender’s Big Brother NewsWatch brings you the latest headlines related to governments’ abuse of power, including attacks on democracy, civil liberties and use of mass surveillance.

On September 9, President Joe Biden unveiled his COVID-19 Action Plan, “a six-pronged, comprehensive national strategy” to combat the pandemic. The most controversial provision, covering some 80 million Americans, mandates that all employers with 100 or more employees must ensure that each worker is either fully vaccinated or provides weekly negative COVID test results.

Republican governors were quick to condemn the mandate, with some vowing legal challenges … the courts are likely to strike down Biden’s mandate as a clear violation of the Constitution’s principles of federalism and separation of powers.

The Case Against Vaccine Passports . . . .


Injections & Injunctions


Part 1: “Paradox”

(A Conversation with Dr. Robert Malone)


with Dr. Robert Malone



Injections and Injunctions


Part 2: “Scientific, Technological Elite”


with Dr. Robert Malone






Unexpected and heartbreaking: Thousands flood ABC affiliate's


Facebook page with vaccination horror stories



by WorldTribune.com


WXYZ in Detriot, an ABC affiliate, asked viewers to share stories of loved ones who died of COVID after refusing or delaying to get the vaccine. This request produced an unexpected truth bomb.By noon on Monday, the post had received over 39,000 angry and often heartbreaking responses. Virtually every string contains a firsthand report by people whose family members are grieving the loss of loved ones of all ages.FROM THE VACCINES.


‘Majority’ of those dying have had both jabs




THE vast majority of Scots now dying from Covid are fully vaccinated, figures show.

Three quarters of those who died in the most recent week for which data was available had received both doses.

But experts have warned the figures are not a reason to avoid getting vaccinated, as without the jab the death toll would be far higher.

Professor Linda Bauld, a Scottish Government adviser and expert in public health at the University of Edinburgh, said: ‘As more people are double vaccinated there will be a higher proportion of the small

‘No reason for people not to take up vaccines’

overall number of deaths among the double vaccinated. This is to be expected in countries with high vaccination rates and should not cause alarm – it’s not a reason for people not to take up vaccines.

‘If people didn’t take up vaccines the deaths would be far higher.’

Public Health Scotland does not directly publish weekly figures of vaccinated and unvaccinated deaths. But this paper has calculated in the month up to August 12, 144 out of 236 deaths were of people with both doses, compared with 80 unvaccinated, and 12 with just one dose. The most recent weekly data, to August 12, showed 30 of 41 deaths were of people with both doses, ten were unvaccinated, and one had been given one dose.


EXCLUSIVE – Covid-19 deaths are 58 times higher than this time last


year and 78% of those dying had the Covid-19 vaccine


according to Public Health data


(audio, 4:48)

by Daily Exposé


Deaths associated with Covid-19 across the UK are significantly higher than this time last year despite 89% of adults allegedly being vaccinated against the disease, and despite the fact summer is supposed to help to keep the alleged virus at bay due to seasonality.

The mainstream media, Public Health sources, and the government are doing their best to convince you that it is the unvaccinated who make up the majority of those deaths. But to do this they are including deaths from the height of the second wave of Covid-19 back in January when barely anybody has been vaccinated.


A recent article by the BBC claimed the following –

Whereas the actual data available from Public Health England shows that 70% of Covid-19 deaths since February 2021 up to the 29th August 2021 were among the vaccinated population.


BREAKING – 30,305 people died within 21 days of having a Covid-19


Vaccine in England during the first 6 months of 2021


according to ONS data


(audio, 6:31)

by Daily Exposé


Official Office for National Statistics data has inadvertently revealed that 30,305 people have died within twenty-one days of having a Covid-19 vaccine in England during the first 6 months of 2021.

Dozens of freedom of information requests have been made to Public Health England (PHE) over the past few months requesting to know how many people have died within 28 days of having a Covid-19 vaccine, but each and every time PHE have claimed they do “not hold the information requested”.





The Truth about Covid-19


“CNN Story That Never Was”

by Dr. Robert Mercola



Story at-a-glance

·         CNN reporter Randi Kaye contacted me to request an interview regarding my latest book, “The Truth About COVID-19”

·         Although I responded to her questions via email, CNN did not publish a story based on this interview request

·         You can tell from the leading questions that, had this “story” been published, it wouldn’t have been true journalism but rather another hit piece manipulated to fit a preformed agenda

·         In the interest of transparency, I posted the email exchange so you can read my responses to CNN’s accusatory questions firsthand

·         CNN and other media outlets have the power to share lifesaving information that could turn the pandemic around and save lives in the process — but they won’t; instead, the media are ignoring the basics of healthy immune function and the importance of early COVID-19 treatment to continue to push the narrative that the only solution is to get an injection


CNN reporter Randi Kaye visited my home unannounced, then tracked me down as I bicycled around my home town in August 2021. Her purpose was to publish a hit piece further labeling me as a "super-spreader of COVID-19 misinformation,"1 based primarily on the opinions of foreign agent Imran Ahmed, founding CEO Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH),2 which is a recently spun up front group funded by dark money.

After that story aired, she again contacted me, this time via email, to request an interview regarding my latest book, "The Truth About COVID-19: Exposing The Great Reset, Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports, and the New Normal." Interview questions were provided via email, as were my responses. To my knowledge, and for unknown reasons, CNN did not publish a story based on this interview request.

However, in the interest of transparency, below I'll post the email exchange so you can read my response to her questions firsthand. You can tell from the leading questions that, had this "story" been published, it wouldn't have been true journalism but rather another hit piece manipulated to fit a preformed agenda.

CNN Interview Request for My Latest Book

August 26, 2021, Kaye emailed, "Here are the questions we would like answered about Dr. Mercola's new book. We would welcome responses by 5pm tomorrow, please." The questions, which are clearly accusatory, are as follows:

"You say in your book that "A large amount of data strongly suggests the COVID - 19 vaccine may be completely unnecessary, which means the global population is being bamboozled into participating in a dangerous and unprecedented experiment for no good reason whatsoever." Can you please point us to that data that suggests the covid vaccines are unnecessary or dangerous?

You say in your book that "vaccine trials are rigged." What proof do you have of that? Which trials? How many? Who rigged them and for what purpose?

You say in your book, "Common sense dictates that if the vaccines cannot prevent or reduce infection and transmission, hospitalization, or death, then they cannot possibly end the pandemic." And that "There's no telling whether they will ultimately prevent hospitalizations and deaths."

Can you please provide us with the source and support for your statements since the CDC says vaccines are nearly 100% effective at preventing severe disease and death and greatly reduce infection.

How do you explain statements from hospitals and government officials that nearly all those who are getting sick and dying now are the unvaccinated?

Do you feel responsible for the spread of misinformation by writing a book full of conspiracy theories and false claims?

What were you paid for this book deal by the publisher?

Are you donating 100% of the earnings from your book?

If so, to which organization? Are you concerned this book will cost people their lives?"

My Response to CNN

Media organizations contact Mercola.com regularly, sometimes to challenge us on the researched, fact-checked articles we post for our readers. In CNN's case, the information they were seeking was directly related to my book, which was the No. 1 best seller in all categories for four straight days with thousands of five-star ratings.

Much like the information on Mercola.com, the information in my book is thoroughly referenced, but Kaye, ironically, engaged in the dissemination of misinformation herself by describing my book as being "full of conspiracy theories and false claims." My response to her questions follows:

"Many studies and other literature offer support for my position in answering several of your questions, which are combined since they can be answered with the same literature. Here are the important points that drive my book:

The vaccines are just 39% effective and waning, and the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has now advised booster doses to the mRNA vaccines in immunocompromised persons. CDC's goal is to begin offering booster doses to everyone else beginning this fall.3,4,5,6

Additionally, breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated persons are becoming more and more prevalent around the world. Evidence is beginning to mount that people with breakthrough infections can spread the Delta variant more easily.7,8,9,10,11,12,13

Most recently, researchers in Israel report that fully vaccinated persons are up to 13 times more likely to get infected than those who have had a natural COVID infection.

As explained by ScienceMag: The study "found in two analyses that people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus.

In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher."14

The study also said that, while vaccinated persons who also had natural infection did appear to have additional protection against the Delta variant, the vaccinated were still at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those without the vaccine, but who were previously infected.

Vaccinees who hadn't had a natural infection also had a 5.96-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold increased risk for symptomatic disease.

"This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity," study authors said.15

A majority of gravely ill patients in Israel are double vaccinated.16 A majority of deaths over 50 in England are also double vaccinated.17 Also, mass vaccination of the population with the highly mutating coronavirus will only evolve perfectly vaccine-resistant strains of the virus."18

Injection Trials Included COVID-19 Infections as Successes

The next part of my response focused more specifically on the vaccine trials, which were problematic from the start since they did not include prevention of infection as an endpoint. Instead, all study endpoints required infection with SARS-CoV-2, and "successes" included subjects with confirmed COVID-19 cases. The difference measured wasn't whether or not the vaccines prevented COVID-19 but whether, and how, they modified symptoms among those infected.19

Also problematic is the unblinding of the vaccine trials, which means the placebo groups were removed. As medical investigative journalist Jeanne Lenzer wrote in the BMJ, "The data are now likely to be scanty and less reliable given that the trials are effectively being unblinded."20 This is the next section of my response to Kaye:

"Regarding the vaccine trials: The vaccine trials were designed specifically to succeed for profit. The public health authorities and media like CNN are utilizing fear of the virus to induce psychological stress that promotes obedience and servitude.21

Additionally, proof that the trials are "rigged" can be shown by virtue of the fact that they've done away with the control groups — who were getting a placebo but who were then offered the vaccine, which virtually does away with the ability to compare adverse reactions including deaths. Pfizer's own vaccine insert for Comirnaty admits that the control group hasn't existed since December 2020:

Section 6.1 — "Upon issuance of the Emergency Use Authorization (December 11, 2020) for COMIRNATY, participants were unblinded to offer placebo participants COMIRNATY. Participants were unblinded in a phased manner over a period of months to offer placebo participants COMIRNATY."22

NPR has noted that removing the placebo groups from vaccine trials will prevent accurate data from long-term studies from being known.23

Additionally, the CDC is being dishonest by utilizing data from the beginning of this year when the vaccine campaign had just been initiated to conflate their claim. They are using data that were scant early in the year because so few were vaccinated, as opposed to using current information.24

Proceeding with the FDA approval of Comirnaty this week was unprecedented. No other vaccine has ever received approval this fast — and without public comment being allowed through ACIP [the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] or VRBPAC [the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee] before approval was issued.

The approval is unconscionable because over 600,000 adverse reactions and 6,000 deaths [now over 14,500 deaths25] have been reported in the U.S. to VAERS. A majority of these reports are filed by medical professionals.

This shows that the safety of these vaccines is not proven. Besides, the experiments are continuing through 2027 as the FDA APPROVAL requires Pfizer to submit study results analyzing risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, and risk to long-term infant development in pregnant women. Study results will be submitted to the FDA for review on Oct 31, 2025 and May 31, 2027 respectively."26

Lifesaving Information That CNN Won't Share

CNN and other media outlets have the power to share lifesaving information that could turn the pandemic around and save lives in the process — but they won't. Instead, the media are ignoring the basics of healthy immune function and the importance of early COVID-19 treatment to continue to push the narrative that the only solution is to get an injection.

The last part of my response to Kaye includes empowering steps that virtually everyone can take to support their health and reduce their risk of infectious disease. This includes having supplies from the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group (FLCCC) I-MASK+ protocol on hand in the event you do get COVID-19.

FLCCC's I-MASK+ protocol can be downloaded in full,27 giving you step-by-step instructions on how to prevent and treat the early symptoms of COVID-19. FLCCC also has protocols for at-home prevention and early treatment, called I-MASS, which involves ivermectin, vitamin D3, a multivitamin and a digital thermometer to watch your body temperature in the prevention phase and ivermectin, melatonin, aspirin and antiseptic mouthwash for early at-home treatment.

I also recommend getting a nebulizer, and the moment you feel a sniffle or something coming on, use nebulized hydrogen peroxide. Having a pulse oximeter on hand is also wise, as it's a noninvasive way to measure the oxygen levels in your blood, allowing you to monitor your levels and help gauge whether a trip to the ER is truly in order.

As I told Kaye, taking control of your health continues to be the "secret" that I strive to share with the masses. The remainder of my response to CNN follows:

"I am donating all proceeds to the National Vaccine Information Center. I encourage every person to fully educate themselves to make individual decisions about medical risk-taking by talking with their personal physician and comparing the risks and benefits to make an informed decision that includes all the information on how these vaccines are working (or not working) and what all the possible side effects may be.

This pandemic is a direct reflection of the health of our population: 95% of COVID deaths have multiple comorbidities. Obesity, vitamin D deficiency and metabolic dysfunction are at the core of this pandemic and can be resolved by taking control of your health by following science-based dietary and lifestyle recommendations.

Since building up your health can't be done overnight, what you can do beginning right now is avoid linoleic acid, check to ensure your vitamin D levels are above 40ng/ml, exercise, get fresh air and proper sun exposure, and restrict your eating window to a 6- to 8-hour time frame each day.

If you do get COVID-19, early treatment is crucial. Follow the Front Line Critical Care Alliance iMASK+ or MATH+ treatment protocols."28

Sources and References




The Covid-19 "Vaccine" and the Nuremberg Code.


Crimes against Humanity?


by Prof Michel Chossudovsky


Parents Sacrifice Their Children on the Altar of Obedience:


Children in Need – The Future in Danger


by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel


The "Killer Vaccine" Worldwide. 7.9 Billion People


by Prof Michel Chossudovsky


"Majority Of Those Dying Had Both Jabs", GoFundMe Deletes


Vaccine Injured & Artificial Scarcity


with Ryan Cristián



Why Vaccine Passports Are Illegal in Canada


by Nicholas Wansbutter





From: ZCommunications [mailto:michael.albert@zmag.org]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2021
Subject: An invitation for your consideration...



The online School for Social and Cultural Change, sscc.teachable.com is offering eleven courses each for eight weeks beginning October 1.
Instructors for the October/November session are Michael Albert, Ben Burgis, Sandy Carter, Rod Driver, Liza Featherstone, Andrej Grubacic, Mandisi Majavu, Eugene Nulman, Alexandria Shaner, Jon S Uss, and Sean Michael Wilson. You can meet them here.
Courses span from economic vision to writing to music, to history, to marxism, to race and racialism, to movement strategy, and more. You can survey them here.
All courses have eight weeks of lectures. Many have additional optional videos, text readings, etc. All have at least one Zoom session each week for students and instructor to talk together about concerns, questions, doubts, and extensions.
You can sign up for a course here. And, if you intend to sign up, please do so sooner rather than later so SSCC can plan accordingly.








Remembering Amiri Baraka and his poem:


"Somebody Blew Up America"


with Eddie Conway



The industrial working class is not dead


by Paul Prescod, Jen Pan and Maximillian Alvarez



Freedom Talks


with Kevin Jenkins and Mark Crispin Miller


September 14, 2021


Mark Crispin Miller is a Professor of Media, Culture and Communication at New York University. He is the author of several books, his recent article touches on many issues we are facing today.

At a time when truth has been silenced & trampled by big tech and conglomerate news networks, Freedom Talks is set to provide a platform for our Natural Freedom Audience to be a part of the discussion so we can broadcast the true opinion of the masses.