The Covid-19 Bioweapon By Brian Simpson
Dr Richard Fleming has recently published a book entitled, Is COVID-19 a Bioweapon? A Scientific and Forensic Investigation, which gives a comprehensive account of the back story of the creation of the Covid-19 virus, SARS-CoV-2, going back decades in terms of its research into corona viruses. The important point now, at this late date, is not so much the origin of Covid, for which the Chinese got away with scot free, but the vaccine aftermath. If SARS-CoV-2 is a bioweapon, constructed in a lab, “then you have to recognize that the vaccines are nothing more than the genetic reproduction of that bioweapon.” Therefore, the Covid jabs are bioweapons too, Drs Fleming and Mercola conclude. If this is true, we will see the results in the months and years to come.
“Here, we discuss his latest book “Is COVID-19 a Bioweapon? A Scientific and Forensic Investigation,” slated for release September 7, 2021. It’s currently available for preorder on Amazon. It’s an incredibly well-documented book and contains history that many of us aren't aware of. As it turns out, the creation of this virus goes back not a year or two but two decades.
“My area of aptitude [is] physics and calculus, the mathematic language for that. Physics, and particularly high energy particle physics, is something that I find very fascinating.
I eventually wound up doing some of that later on in life as a nuclear cardiologist. So, [I’ve done] 53 years of research in physics, and in medicine, I actually developed the inflammation in heart disease theory and presented it to American Heart in 1994.
I joined American Heart 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 cholesterol education faculty.
I did a lot of 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, strokes, diabetes or cancer,” Fleming explains.
Standing on Principles of Ethics
Fleming is also a scientific reviewer for more than 16 different journals. He was on the external clinical review board for The Lancet, but quit in protest of the fake hydroxychloroquine article they published — an act I believe demonstrates his dedication to scientific integrity. He also resigned from the British Medical Journal Open Quality due to similar concerns.
“Eventually we either stand behind principles or we acquiesce and become nothing more than the German doctors of Nazi Germany during World War II,” he says. “And as history showed us, they eventually paid a price at the Nuremberg Trials …
There are people — powers that be — that think that they have things going their direction, but it's very clear to me that they're not confident that they've got everybody under control. 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, as they should be.”
Digging Up the Truth
Early on in 2020, Fleming started researching treatment options for SARS-CoV-2 using the Fleming Method, which you can learn more about on flemingmethod.com. Using this method, you can measure how a given intervention works on the tissue level, and how infection or inflammation is responding to the treatment.
He ended up developing 52 treatment combinations, and over the course of that study, the length of hospitalization stays went from five to six weeks down to one to two weeks. But he also learned something else.
“In the process of doing that research, I dug 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,” Fleming explains.
“Tens of millions of dollars have been funneled out of the U.S., and Anthony Fauci has helped with that. He's been on those committees. You can see the grant numbers in the book.”
Is COVID-19 a Bioweapon?
While gain-of-function can be used for benevolent purposes, it can just as easily be used for nefarious ones, “and that's kind of what you see happening,” Fleming says.
“You see real efforts to produce viruses, coronaviruses, in particular. Spike proteins of coronaviruses to be even more specific, as I show in the book, paid for by the federal government by people who say they were 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. They show the work and the money that came out of the federal government that went to Peter Daszak at EcoHealth, that went to Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina, Shi Zhengli at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other places.
For me, as a researcher, obviously, once I start to investigate something, the only way you can stop me from doing that is to put a bullet in my head. Otherwise, I'm going to stay after it. There are things that are not in the book that are going to come out in international criminal court, things I'm saving for that, 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 you see these monies and you see the people that are involved, you realize that … 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.
For lack of a better term, this book is an indictment. That's now my attorney hat going on saying that I have provided in this book evidence that I would take to a grand jury … I'm not somebody who is going to give up on having these people dealt with, because all the freedoms that we have lost, and the rights that we have lost as individuals, not to mention just the numbers of people who have died.
My argument is … the reason why they died is because they didn't get treatment for the inflammation and the blood clotting that I and other doctors have shown works. The ultimate argument is that you can't kill somebody more than dead … they can't do worse than kill the patient. And we've already seen what doing nothing does. It kills the patient.
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.’ We have always treated people with breathing problems with medications for breathing problems. 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, and the same people who have been involved in the development of these vaccines.”
While Fleming carefully lays out the evidence in his book, he leaves it up to you, the reader, to decide whether SARS-CoV-2 is a bioweapon or not. However, he says, if you do come to that conclusion (and he believes you will once you’ve seen the evidence), “then you have to recognize that the vaccines are nothing more than the genetic reproduction of that bioweapon.” Hence, the COVID shots are bioweapons too.
Warning to Medical Professionals
If you are a doctor, nurse, pharmacist or other health professional administering these COVID shots, you may be wise to reconsider your participation in this scheme. A significant problem is there’s no way to provide or obtain informed consent. As noted by Fleming:
“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. 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. My friends in Italy tell me that 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 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.
So, the pressure being put on the medical community in this country and in countries around the world to simply go along is nothing more than the equivalent of what Adolf Hitler and the SS did during World War II when they rounded up the intellectuals. One [thing] will lead to the next and there's nothing about this that has been a successful campaign to control an infectious virus …
All you have to do is read the emergency use authorization documents. I'm just stunned at how many people have not read these. I'm stunned at physicians not having read these.”
On flemingmethod.com, you can find several video presentations and PDFs where Fleming goes through the emergency use authorization documents. With that data in hand, Fleming suggests asking yourself some fundamental scientific questions, such as: “Is there any statistical difference in the number of people who developed COVID-19 or died among the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated?”
The answer provided in the documents is no. There is no statistical difference between the two groups. The vaccines do not statistically reduce COVID-19 infection or death thereof. There are fewer cases in absolute numbers, but statistically there’s no difference. Add to that the risk of side effects. If you take the shot, you risk developing inflammation and blood clotting.
The same people that were involved in the funding of this bioweapon are the same people that have interfered with doctors providing treatment to patients, and the same people that have been involved in the development of these vaccines. ~ Dr. Richard Fleming
As noted above, coerced administration of these shots violate any number of laws. Fleming also cites supreme court rulings in which the court ruled people have the right to choose their own health care.
“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. 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 health care 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. 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.
Anybody who takes an oath of office — the president of the United States, senators, representatives to Congress, governors, police officers, judges, lawyers, administrative officials — 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 is required, then he is violating the U.S. Constitution by violating Treaty and therefore has committed treason.
It's not only an impeachable offense, it is punishable by death because that's [the punishment for] 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 say, ‘Whoa, well, we've now approved it, OK?’ 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.”
Moderna Has Been Aware of Risks for Years
You’ve probably heard that the mRNA in the COVID shots are designed to stay right around the injection site. However, Fleming points out that Moderna knew this wasn’t the case, as they published research in 2017 showing a lipid nanoparticle vaccine for influenza ended up in the brain, bone marrow, liver, spleen and just about everywhere else in the bodies of the test animals.
“So, for people to come up now and say, ‘Gosh, golly gee whiz, we just didn't expect that’ is a little disingenuous,” Fleming says. “And I think you have to ask yourself, why does the cardiologist know about the 2017 paper but the people responsible for the technology claim they don't?
And so, what you see are normal healthy people responding to a massive production of spike proteins and healthy people should make a massive immune response. What does that immune response do? It produces inflammation and blood clotting, and then the spike proteins go across the blood-brain barrier and cause prion diseases just like what's been shown in humanized mice and rhesus macaque models.
I'm willing to bet that the people who made this gain-of-function virus already knew that, because one of the things that had the government and Big Pharma coming after me in the 1990s [and] early 2000s was the fact that the research I was doing in dietary and inflammatory disease had the same Neu-5-Ac raft receptor that the glycoprotein 120 of HIV — which Shi Zhengli put [into the virus] in 2004 — attaches to.
So, the people that were doing this were paralleling my research … 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. So, it's interesting how you can be minding your own business and doing really good research, trying to answer some questions, and it might just expose the people that are doing nefarious things.”
Comments