Watch the 4 Hour Event: https://www.flemingmethod.com/recorded-event-2021-presentation-series
Find LTH on LBRY:
Find LTH on Bitchute:
Join the LTH community:
Dr. Richard Fleming on the Most Effective Drug-based Treatment for Covid-19
Dr. Richard M. Fleming, PhD, MD, JD is a scientist/physicist and also a cardiologist who discovered that inflammation and heart disease go hand in hand and have patented the Fleming Method (FMTVDM). He led a clinical trial on COVID-19 treatment protocols. In this episode, Dr. Fleming shares where SARS-CoV-2 came from, which medicines are effective for the treatment of COVID-19, and what type of diet helps prevent diseases.
Hello, true health seeker and welcome to another exciting episode of the Learn True Health podcast. This is a long-awaited episode that I did with Dr. Richard Fleming. I have been so excited to publish this and I apologize for the break that I took. Man, this year has been crazy.
Basically, we moved, we had to move very quickly. We had to use the Marie Kondo method and get rid of most of our belongings that we filled a 2700 square foot house. And now we are living in a beautiful and very small space. We have decluttered our life, and that’s what we have been doing the last two months. We got rid of all of our belongings, only kept the absolute essentials, and we moved. So now we are living in a beautiful area, in a very, very small space, in a more efficient life.
It’s a huge emotional process going through decluttering and just emotionally and energetically removing from my life what no longer served me. I watched the Marie Kondo show on Netflix, many of my friends have read her book, and I read some of her books. What I wasn’t aware of is how much of an energetic release would happen. When we decluttered, we donated, we sold, we gave away, and in some cases had to throw away so much of our belongings. And now, everything we own can fit in basically one room, which feels liberating. Also now, I realize that there’s a whole ‘nother level of organization that we’re going to achieve.
But we’ve taken the last two months, we were very, very busy doing all of that, and finally we’re now set up and I have my computer set up, and I’m able to interview and publish episodes again.
This particular interview is, in my mind, one of the best or one of the most informative pieces that I have ever done. What I really enjoy about Dr. Fleming’s research is—you know, there are some doctors that sell a book, this is how they make a living, and so there’s always a question in the back of your mind like, what’s your motivation? Is it money motivated? I believe everyone has the right to earn a living, you just have to wonder, how much are they selling, right?
Whereas Dr. Fleming, he has everything to lose and nothing to gain from putting this information out there. He loves doing research. He’s a research scientist and cardiologist. He is a patent holder of a method called the Fleming Method that is used today for early detection of heart disease and in some cases cancer. And he really doesn’t like self-promotion, that’s not his thing. Him and I talked about that off the air.
Now, when I interviewed him, he had an event coming up in which he was even upset they were charging $10 to come attend the event. And it was a four-hour lecture that he was giving with over 100 slides that you could download for free. This information is so incredibly valuable and I’m so excited to bring it to you today. Because of my move and everything that’s going on, unfortunately, I’m publishing this after his event. However, the good news is you can go to his website, flemingmethod.com, and of course, the links to everything that Dr. Richard Fleming does is going to be in the show notes of today’s podcast at learntruehealth.com.
You can go to his website and from there you will be able to see, I believe he’s cut it into something like the four-hour lecture into something like 15 parts. You can stream, watch, and I think you might even be able to download his lecture. And definitely download the PDF with all of the slides. What he gives you with all of the evidence is he gives you the paper trail of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Who created it, how it was created, the effects it has on the body from a medical standpoint. The paper trail is very evident. He shows who funded it, the labs have funded it. He shows basically what it does to the body, and if we understand what it does to the body, then we can also understand how to best combat it as well.
He shows his study—which he talks about in our interview today and you’re going to be blown away— where they’ve used medications to see which ones are best at surviving, decreasing the mortality rate of coronavirus infection. He also shows the latest vaccine trials, their efficacy and their safety. He basically pulls all this data and digests it and explains it. So it’s fascinating. I watched the four-hour lecture. I listened to most of it because I was listening to it while I was packing up our house. I’d look over occasionally at the slides that he was presenting, and just my mind was blown. So I’m excited for you to hear this episode. Thank you for your patience. I know you guys have been eagerly waiting to hear it.
Definitely go to his website to listen to his four-hour lecture where he goes into great detail. What’s great about our interview is he goes into stories and explains the backstory as well, so this interview will complement his four-hour lecture very well for you.
If you have any questions, if you want to chat about this interview or anything that Dr. Fleming does, please join the Learn True Health Facebook group. It’s a great community of holistic-minded people who are all looking to achieve true health and looking to continue learning from each other. Just search Learn True Health on Facebook, or you can go to learntruehealth.com/group. That’ll redirect you straight to the Facebook group.
Thank you so much for being a listener and thank you so much for sharing these episodes with those you love. This is one of those shareable episodes for sure. I know that there’ll be new listeners and I’m very excited. Welcome guys. I’ve been doing this podcast for five years now, and I continue to just love everything I learned from all the holistic doctors.
Now I’ve got some more episodes in the hopper for you after this one, and I just know that you guys will love the next few episodes that are coming up so stay tuned. Make sure you’re subscribed on your favorite podcast directory. And please, if you love the show, give it a five-star rating and written review. It really does help. The more positive five-star written reviews we get, the more platforms like iTunes, Spotify, and Stitcher, the more they, in turn, will promote the show’s search ability to other people. So we can spread this information through giving it great reviews.
So if you like it, give it a great review, and if you don’t like it just write me an email and start a conversation with me, email@example.com. I’d love to hear from you. Either way, thank you so much for being a listener and sharing the show. Enjoy today’s episode, I know you will—some amazing information. I’m so excited to get it out for you today.
[00:07:57] Ashley James: Welcome to the Learn True Health podcast. I’m your host, Ashley James. This is episode 463. I am so excited for today’s guest. You just have no idea. We have probably the smartest guy in the world on the show today. I watched a two-hour YouTube video with Dr. Richard Fleming, explaining the link between inflammation, SARS, and COVID. He’s the one that discovered the inflammation and heart disease go hand in hand. Dr. Fleming, your research, what you’re sharing with us on your website, which I recommend all listeners go to flemingmethod.com. He puts out lots of great information. He doesn’t like charging for things. He just wants to keep helping us and get this information out there.
He’s got over 30 videos explaining the science behind COVID and inflammation, and it’s really going to wake people up for real, blow their minds, and get us back in charge of our health. That’s the whole point of this podcast is getting us back in charge of our health. When you understand how these things work in the body and you understand an inflamed body, how it responds to disease and infection versus a body that’s not inflamed, the care that you can do to take care of yourself to prevent things from happening in the future, you’re going to be so much better off.
Dr. Fleming, it’s such a pleasure to have you here today. Now, you have an event coming up in Texas, in Dallas. So if any listeners are in Dallas, they got to go to flemingmethod.com and right there at the top, it says Event 2021. It’s only $10, it’s a whole day event where you can learn from Dr. Fleming and you’re going to learn about COVID. I’m sure you’re going to tell us a little bit today about what this event is, and it’s going to be filmed. So for those who aren’t in Dallas, Texas, we’ll be able to go to your website, flemingmethod.com, and watch the event as well.
You’re going to be giving us the download of all your slides. There are over 100 slides referencing all the studies. We were just talking before we hit record that you’re surprised you haven’t been assassinated. I mean honestly, you’re putting out so much information that would make some government officials very angry, some CDC officials very angry. People that want to keep telling us we all need to follow their guidelines, which I’m not sure how studied their guidelines are. I don’t see the science. I just see them constantly changing directions.
In my state, in Washington, what I’ve seen is almost half of all restaurants have gone out of business. We’re heading for a major disaster if the economy goes this way. Small businesses are being crushed, and so many people are losing their jobs. I am in fear of what is going to happen in the next few years as a result of the government not taking true science into account and making mandates that aren’t necessarily helping any of us. And then, of course, we’re not being told what we can do to actually prevent or support our body in mounting a healthy response.
So there’s all this in the air and Dr. Fleming, I’m so excited to have you here today to share with us what we can do to support our body to prevent heart disease, which you are the expert in, and also, talk a little bit about COVID since you have so much information around that.
[00:12:11] Dr. Richard Fleming: Well, first off, thank you for inviting me, Ashley. It’s my pleasure to be here and given an opportunity to try to provide some information for your listeners and let them know about the upcoming event.
It’s interesting that you mentioned the CDC just a few moments ago because back in 2005, the CDC invited me to attend a conference and present on not only the patent FMTVDM, which some people have shortened to the Fleming Method because the name of the patent is rather long. But also, the role that diet and other risk factors for heart disease played for it. So we were talking about heart disease and cancer at that point in time in conjunction with the patent.
Just for the heck of it, the title of the patent is the Fleming Method for Tissue and Vascular Differentiation using same state single or sequential quantification comparisons. I thought I was doing people a favor by the acronym FMTVDM, and now it’s been shortened to Fleming Method, which is fine. This is year number 53 for me doing research—and one of the things that I learned way back and particularly back in medical school when I entered medical school in 1980—was we were told by the dean that 90% of what we’re going to be taught was incorrect. He encouraged those of us who are research-oriented, and I was clearly research-oriented, to investigate different fields of medicine and try to advance it as best we could.
So I’ve spent several of those decades looking at the tests that we do, understanding what causes different disease states, and trying to get a better handle on finding problems earlier, but not from the point of view that there are so many people that get tests done that they don’t quite know what the results of those tests are.
It’s not a matter of having an insensitive test finding things, or an overly sensitive test finding things. It’s a matter of actually measuring things. Much of the work that I’ve done diagnostically has been to look at how we measure things and to define not only disease but our health on a spectrum from one end to the other so that we can find things sooner. Not just so we can attack it using the same old methods, but hopefully so we can do things to improve our health earlier on using, hopefully, less aggressive and less toxic means, and perhaps more fundamental approaches than we’re so used to doing.
One of the things that people need to appreciate or I would hope that they would appreciate about medicine is that much of what medicine has had to focus on is just simply keeping people alive in emergency situations, and that’s where a lot of our focus has been. Only after you tackle that type of problem do you get the luxury of going back and looking at how we can then prevent things. There is not a lot or actually any emphasis by the Federal government on preventing disease.
In the 1960s, that was discussed briefly, and some of the people that raised those questions were advised to stop asking those questions, and they did. The government does not like it when you raise questions and does not like it when you think outside of the box.
[00:15:53] Ashley James: It was pressure by the pharmaceutical industry, you think because there’s no profit in not being sick?
[00:16:04] Dr. Richard Fleming: Well, I’ve got two responses to many questions people answer. First off, there’s a heck of a lot of profit for people in not being sick because vitamins, minerals, and lots of different things like that are made by the same pharmaceutical companies that sell you the prescription drugs. But you are correct in that there is an awful lot of money to be made by disease.
It’s like casinos. If you look at a casino and you and you look at what they consider the risk of winning there, you just have to step back for a moment and think, how do they keep the doors open to all these bright shiny places? And it’s not because they’re losing money, they’re making money. Big Pharma is making money. There’s no doubt about it. The SARS-CoV-2 has demonstrated a tremendous capacity to make money.
In fact, billions and trillions have gone into SARS-CoV-2. And the irony is when you look at the evidence about this virus, where it came from, who paid for it, and who’s funding the research not only for this virus but for vaccines, for CRISPR technology, for SAM technology, for transmissible vaccine technology, for all the other components, you’ll find that it’s basically the same groups of people. It’s our Federal government, it’s the Gates Foundation, it’s the Helmsley Foundation. It’s people that were connected with Jeffrey Epstein when he was alive.
You’re right. I mean, those types of things are controversial and I don’t think the powers that be really want that information out there, but unfortunately, they really haven’t, in my opinion, been manipulating something as long as they have been with this pandemic. The amount of time that they’ve been manipulating it had its effect of getting people to not talk to each other and to go along with the flow, but it’s also had a secondary effect, which is a significant amount of the population that I’ve guesstimating is about 30%, have really kind of had it with this process. And that’s caused them to start doing what they’re not supposed to, which is to get together and to talk about things. The more people talk and share information, the less likely they are to be manipulated and controlled by the powers that be.
[00:18:46] Ashley James: Yes, that’s why we’re here today. You guys that are listening to this, that is exactly what you need to know is the more you know, the more you’re not going to be manipulated. We talked about this in past interviews about how we’ve been raised to believe milk is good, milk does a body good. That was marketing.
[00:19:10] Dr. Richard Fleming: Oh yeah.
[00:19:10] Ashley James: We’ve been manipulated through marketing, that’s federally subsidized, right? It doesn’t do a body good. There’s so much science now, so many studies show that it’s actually not great for you, and it’s not a great source of calcium. Calcium is much better getting it from vegetables, for example, versus getting it from a cow because that’s so pro-inflammatory for the body and there are higher risks of cancer. We can get into that, but I just want to bring it up, just touching on this a little bit because you did go there.
The word conspiracy is a plot or a scheme to do harm, to do things that are illegal. So when we talk about conspiracy because, in the mainstream media, it’s been twisted. The word conspiracy is, oh, those are the nutjobs who believe the Earth is flat or whatever. They try to paint the word conspiracy, and it’s actually not the definition. The definition is when we are identifying a group of people who are doing harm, who are doing something possibly nefarious. And you mentioned those organizations like the Gates Foundation, those same organizations and people that you mentioned are also connected to or were connected to the Wuhan lab that was studying the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
So just putting it out there, when we go down that rabbit hole, we see that there’s so much to look at. These organizations that are now telling us what we need to do or to our body have been involved for a long time in studying this virus, and creating vaccines. Scary though that every vaccine they’ve ever tried to test on animals for COVID because COVID has been around for a long time just like influenza, different variants have been around for a long time. Every time they go to create a vaccine, all the animals die during the trials. And now, the animals that it’s being given to are humans because it’s a trial now. This is the scary part.
What is the connection? Now considering that you are the discoverer, you are the person who discovered that heart disease and inflammation go together, that inflammation causes heart disease and you can see the two together. I love that then you created this method of measuring it so that we could catch it way early on. Most people know they have heart disease when they have their first heart attack or when they have angina, when they have major they’ve had it for years. They’ve been developing it for years or they develop a stroke. They’ve had it for years, but what if they could have gone through a test and then caught the inflammation early on and then changed their lifestyle so that they didn’t have that inflammation, they didn’t go that route?
Now, this is near and dear to my heart because my dad died of heart disease and my mom died of cancer. These two things, if they had known years before that their body is going to create this disease that will end their life early, they would have made different choices, hopefully. But what is the link between inflammation and maybe how people, when they have COVID, how their outcomes are? Can you see that there are significantly worse outcomes for those who already have inflammation? If their body’s not inflamed, do they have better outcomes? Is there a way of treating the inflammation while they’re in COVID, while they’re infected so that they have a better outcome?
[00:23:31] Dr. Richard Fleming: Right. Let me walk everybody back to a little bit of history on me so that you can get a perspective of me laying these answers out. So in 1976, I joined American Heart as a faculty member, which made me the youngest faculty member at that point in time in history. I hope nobody has taken me out of those positions at a younger age than I did. But, more power to them if they have. As a result of doing it, I get put on three basic committees. One was basic, one was advanced cardiac life support. And then the other one was a new committee, physician cluster education faculty.
I began on all three of those for the latter one talking to physicians primarily and then expanding beyond that about what caused heart disease and what can be done about it. The primary theory at that point in time was it was cholesterol. I spent a couple of decades teaching that and training that to people. And then in the late ‘80s, I started questioning some of that. From ’89 to ’92, I was actually the cardiology fellow who did the Dean Ornish program studies for them at UT where I did my fellowship in cardiology.
I then questioned further on that because some of that data even is questionable about what the real outcomes were, and proceeded to look at a variety of other factors that people were reporting as significant but not uniformly. And so over the course of time and eventually I took six months sabbatical to just sort this out. I developed what was called the Fleming inflammation and vascular disease theory, the Fleming inflammation and heart disease theory. The inflammation and heart disease theory has been called a variety of things. Presented it at American Heart in 1994 then again in 1995, reduced it to a textbook. So, written up as a chapter in a cardiology textbook in ’99.
And then, from 2000 to 2003, published a couple of studies on bacteria and their specific roles. And then we were on 20/20 in 2004 talking about it. And essentially began with the process that heart disease is an inflammatory process, it’s not a narrowing of an artery, although that occurs later on. About half of the people find out they have heart disease by dropping dead of it, which is not your best approach to find out that you have a problem. It’s the inability of an artery to relax and increase its blood flow upon demand that’s called Flow Reserve and I wrote the quadratic equation for that back in ‘90 or ‘91. So that is the blood flow equation for humans.
Then came up with these 12 factors of which one of those are infectious diseases like bacteria and viruses that produce an inflammatory process. Now, I then also went on to explain that this is what causes diabetes, high blood pressure, cerebrovascular diseases, strokes, cancers, and a variety of health problems. And that obesity is one of the primary reasons why these chemicals exist in the body called cytokines are interleukins, which means they are chemicals that are released from one type of blood cell to another type of blood cell to signal that there’s a problem.
So the entire theory boils down to two things going on: an inflammatory process or a swelling, and a thrombosis or blood clotting process, which at first blush might seem not good for the human body until you realize that really what that does is it tries to kill off something that’s not supposed to have been in the area by releasing chemicals that just perforate or destroy cells that are damaged. And then, depriving them of blood by forming a blood clot so it decreases their nutrients getting in there or their oxygen getting in there so things die. The focus is to attack things that shouldn’t be there.
These chronic inflammatory diseases, however, are the result of us, humans, doing things for our bodies that we shouldn’t. I chuckled at the milk comment because that’s one of the conversations that I’ve had with people in the past. I’ve had lots of criticism from people that they don’t like what I have to say. I like to be liked, but it’s not my goal as a scientist/physician to make you like me, my goal is to tell you the truth. I always tell people that if they’re given the choice between the doctor they don’t like that saves their lives and the one that will hold their hand while they’re dying, go for the first one. The latter one doesn’t have a very good outcome, even if you feel good while you’re doing it.
So, the inflammatory process is designed to protect you. But if you’re doing things to insult your body consistently, it will produce disease and you will stay in a hyperinflammatory, hyper thrombotic or what I call InflammoThrombotic Response, ITR for short because scientists and doctors like to abbreviate things. And then my students get to listen to me say don’t abbreviate, tell me the whole thing. They get to abbreviate when they’re later, older, doing things like I do, and getting tired of using the full phrases.
What we saw with SARS-CoV-2, and it’s important to distinguish between the viral infection and the disease. So SARS-CoV-2 is the virus and COVID-19 is the disease. It’s like cholesterol is a problem, and coronary artery disease is the disease. They are two different things. COVID means that you have developed an InflammoThrombotic Response. Well, why would you develop a potentially lethal, life-threatening InflammoThrombotic Response? Well, it’s because you have comorbidity. You have one of these other health problems that your body is already in hyper or increased inflammation or inflammatory and thrombotic process.
So now, you just simply toss a little bit more gasoline on the fuel by having the virus, and what we see were people’s systems that simply couldn’t hang on anymore, that was “the straw that broke the camel’s back”. So that’s what we really saw and see with this disease.
During 2020, I began the process very early in the year of sorting out what was going on with this virus as best I could and looked at treatments. Where everybody else was focused on what type of treatment, was it an anti-malarial or an antibiotic, I was asking a different type of question. Which was, what’s the mechanisms of action or how do these drugs work? Because that’s really the key. It’s not the label that you put on it, it’s how do the drugs work? They do the things that are necessary to treat a) a virus, and b) this InflammoThrombotic Response that can occur to it.
Because I patented FMTVDM or Fleming Method and had already done about two decades’ worth of research, we already have the data that shows where this inflammatory and thrombotic process of infection lies in the measurements of FMTVDM.
The other thing is that I’m not a big fan of doing sloppy research, even though I get a lot of criticism from people who like to do sloppy research because they like to do one drug or two drugs and then compare that, and that’s not very useful. I mean, it’s nice if you have lots of time and people aren’t dying, but when people are dying, you have to take a different approach, in my opinion. And that’s to look at a lot of drugs altogether. You can only do them one at a time, but if you do it intelligently, you can layer them one after another.
We took 1,800 people. I’m going to answer this now because I see criticisms on social media. The study was not changed from 500 people to 1,800 people. The study was designed to end up with 500 people who were hospitalized with the InflammoThrombotic Response of COVID-19. To do that meant that we had 1800 people that we originally saw to get to the 500. In fact, we got to 501 because I didn’t stop at 500. I stopped at 501, big deal.
[00:33:03] Ashley James: When you saw these 1,800 people, were they all positively infected?
[00:33:09] Dr. Richard Fleming: Right, so that’s the thing. They were done in 7 countries, 23 facilities outside of the United States. Because the United States had already established that it wasn’t going to do this type of research, it was going to muddle along at the pace that it was doing and it was going to focus on vaccines.
So I have—I never thought I’d see it in my lifetime, but I certainly have now—seen an environment where the Federal government said there are no treatments for these things and you’d better not be treating people for it. So clearly this was not something we could do in the United States, and I make no apologies about that.
[00:33:49] Ashley James: That seems completely unethical.
[00:33:52] Dr. Richard Fleming: I think it’s unethical and considering where this virus came from, everything shows that this is a bioweapon that we’ll get into if we have enough time. And that the same people that said there are no treatments, we’re going to go vaccines, are the same people that paid for this gain of function by a weapon. And I don’t think it’s just unethical, I think it’s criminal. I think they have violated international law. And if I have anything to say about it, they will be held before a second Nuremberg trial and be held accountable.
So we did it outside the country and what we did is we brought them, so they came to see their doctors. I simply coordinated the study and made the patent available without cost and designed a study. So they came to see their doctors. They had to have a positive PCR test, for lack of a better thing. That’s all we had at the time. And then their doctors decided whether they would say, okay, I don’t think you’re symptomatic enough to be treated. Go home, come back in three days. I want to re-evaluate you, or their doctors who would say, well, we have four options to treat from here in an outpatient setting. I think you’re symptomatic, I’m going to start you on that, and then come back in three days.
They were almost evenly distributed, there were slightly more who ended up getting treatment by their physicians. And then in three days, a decision was made. You came back, you looked better, and you get kept on that medication; or if you weren’t getting medication and you got better, everybody said hooray.
In either group, if you didn’t get better, you got hospitalized because you were symptomatic and you were then diagnosed with COVID-19 coronavirus disease 2019. Because it was not the 19th coronavirus, it was discovered in 2019, or at least that’s when all of us were told about it. Although, we have documents that show that SARS-CoV-2 was actually part of a research project out of China in 2007 where they combined hepatitis C virus, HIV virus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 in a gain-of-function research project.
[00:36:17] Ashley James: That’s where the bioweapon thing comes in?
[00:36:19] Dr. Richard Fleming: Well, we’ll get into that in more detail, but it’s out of the United States and out of China, primarily.
[00:36:28] Ashley James: Is this a patent that people can see?
[00:36:30] Dr. Richard Fleming: I don’t know if they patented that, but the papers are certainly out there. In fact, I’m writing a book on gain-of-function because I was asked to write a book. Not only was I asked to write a book, but I’ve been asked to provide documents for court.
[00:36:47] Ashley James: I’d love to have you back on the show when you have released your book so that we can promote it because I know my listeners would be very interested in reading it.
[00:36:57] Dr. Richard Fleming: I would be delighted and you know how I feel about promoting things.
[00:37:01] Ashley James: Don’t worry, I’ll do the promotion for you.
[00:37:04] Dr. Richard Fleming: Thank you. So they did that and when they came into the hospital, they had an FMTVDM done. They also had a number of other tests, a couple that looked for information, and other things that we were concerned about. They had electrocardiograms, looked at their heart rhythm and the QT interval that everybody stresses out about, and then they were randomly assigned a treatment—1 of 10 treatments. Sorry, that’s just how you do research.
[00:37:36] Ashley James: But this was suspected to help them?
[00:37:42] Dr. Richard Fleming: Right. Every one of these treatments I had selected based upon the mechanism of action and data that was available that I’m surprised more people aren’t aware of, but that’s the function of a good researcher is to be able to do that type of thing. And then in three days, they had the studies repeated, and one of three things was going to happen. Either they got better, they got worse, or no change. I won’t go through the details of how we did the measurements and what accounted for better or worse, but just using that if they got better, then they were maintained on that drug. If they got worse, the drug was stopped and they were randomly given another one. If there was no significant change, they were randomly assigned to a new drug on top of what they had already received.
So with 10 treatment combinations, we ended up with, in the end, 52 different combinations of drugs that were studied. And because FMTVDM quantifies and measures, we had the ability to statistically analyze that and sort out what worked and what didn’t work, and in what combinations things worked and didn’t work. That boiled it down to three combinations that were 99.83% successful for COVID patients.
Outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 had a variety, about an 83% success rate. Although one drug combination worked 100% of the time, and as I tell people, it worked 100% of the time, my response is yeah. But if we get enough people, somebody is not going to work on it. You just have to be intelligent enough to realize what the information is telling us is what works, and it shows us why the drugs work because these drug combinations, when you tend to look at them, by doing them in combination, decreased hospital stays from 40 to 60 days down to 1 to 2 weeks.
And then the other thing was that we’re very careful about the ventilator settings because using ventilators, the way that they are standardly typically set and used on patients has already been shown in three major publications published in the New England Journal of Medicine—when it was still a journal versus a political tool—had shown previously that if you set ventilators the way we set them routinely for patients, you’ll kill patients with this type of lung disease. And I think we’ve done a great job now of validating those papers as well with all the people that have died, and SARS-CoV-2, for the only positive note I can say on that, is it validated my original theory from 1994. Not where I was going or wanting to go with that, but there you go.
[00:40:36] Ashley James: It originally validated that inflammation is the root cause of disease?
[00:40:42] Dr. Richard Fleming: It validated the fact that bacteria and viruses are one of those pro-inflammatory things that will kill you with heart disease and the other diseases because that’s why people died.
[00:40:53] Ashley James: It exacerbates what’s already there, right?
[00:40:57] Dr. Richard Fleming: Yeah, they weren’t being treated, that’s the problem. 99.83% of our people survived. So what that tells you is that had everybody else been treated for this InflammoThrombotic Response that I described in the theory, we wouldn’t have had hundreds and thousands and millions of people die. But it’s the attitude of, well, everybody talks about inflammation and heart disease, but it’s lip service to me because nobody then turned around and treated the people.
If the attitude is we don’t have treatments for this, or if we treat you that way that they’re going to come after our medical licenses or throw us in jail, well, understanding that that is the scenario that happened in the United States and around the world, it’s not too challenging to understand why the German Medical Association behaved the way it did under Adolf Hitler. And Göring at the 1947 Nuremberg trials when he knew he was going to be hanged for crimes against humanity, the Germans and Nazis were no different than the Americans, the British, or anybody else.
He said, any government can do this to its people, and the American attorney that was arguing with him said, no, no, no, we’re a free society in the United States. This does not happen. And Göringlooked and he said, you know, it doesn’t matter whether you get a republic, a parliament, communist, socialistic, or fascist society. All you have to do to manipulate the people is tell them there’s a problem. Tell them if they don’t step in line that bad things will happen. Tell them that people that don’t step in line are unpatriotic and you will manipulate the people. And I think we’ve seen a good demonstration of that over the last year and a half.
I mean, at least that’s my perspective on it. Psychologists have known this for a long time since the 1940s if not before, how to modify this. The US Army and government are very good at learning how and controlling people’s behaviors, and yet they continue to repeatedly conduct experiments on US citizens. I mean, you don’t even have to be good at this. You can go to Wikipedia and type in something about US government experiments on its people, something like that, and you’ll pull up a Wikipedia page that will just blow you out of the water.
[00:43:39] Ashley James: Yeah, there’s video footage.
[00:43:41] Dr. Richard Fleming: From [inaudible 00:43:40] experiment to syphilis to radiation exposure on US military personnel—you name it. We’re not living with a bunch of nice folks. If you look at the last 20 to 30 years, you’ll see that the US government has conducted gain-of-function research, and it has paid Peter Daszak of EcoHealth over $61 million, $39 million of which came from the Department of Defense and they provided an advisor, David Franz, who was a former Deputy Commander of Fort Detrick, our bioweapons Center for the US military in the United States. Provided that to Peter Daszak who then provided funds to Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina, and Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And you don’t have to be really good at this, I don’t think.
I mean, I’ve got a ton of grant data, I’ve got a ton of published papers that showed who paid for the results. There are patents out there that show that Daszak patented for gene manipulation, including humans and viruses and bacteria. The US government gets patent kickbacks on not only that one, but specifically the patent for investigating chimeric, which is the scientific term for gain-of-function, spike proteins on coronaviruses.
So what Anthony Fauci did earlier in the week or during this last week when Senator Dr. Rand Paul asked him about gain-of-function research coming out of NIH and NIAID to Daszak and the others on coronavirus. When Fauci danced around that as he did and said the US government has not funded gain-of-function research, they’ve got a bloody patent that they’re getting the rights and monies for that very type of research. The paper trail of publications and money trail shows that Fauci committed perjury.
[00:45:52] Ashley James: Oh my gosh.
[00:45:55] Dr. Richard Fleming: I mean, Fauci, remember, was pushing the vaccines and he is connected with Pfizer and Moderna.
[00:46:02] Ashley James: Yes. And connected with the Wuhan lab that created the virus, the study.
[00:46:10] Dr. Richard Fleming: Yeah. Not only that, but if you go and you look, you will see that Fauci, Gates, Helmsley, and Epstein are all tied together behind the scenes. Epstein not so much anymore because he’s dead, which is what happens to you—speculative on my part, it is my opinion, not a known fact—if you displease powers that be, bad things happen to people, even if they’re powerful people.
[00:46:40] Ashley James: And it definitely sends a message to everyone else step in line.
[00:46:43] Dr. Richard Fleming: It definitely does. I mean, one of the things that I’ve commented to people is—and some people don’t like me to get this off track—I’m Viking ancestry. I frequently tell people that my ancestors had a good way of cutting down recidivism. They just simply cut the heads off their enemies and it sends a very powerful message. I’m pretty sure that my ancestors aren’t the only ones that learned that message. People end up dead, people end up missing. I know more than enough examples of it.
[00:47:20] Ashley James: There’s a lot of holistic doctors, a lot of doctors that have been speaking out, such as yourself, who suddenly passed away even though they were super healthy. It does leave us suspicious. I pray that you are safe. You’ve moved to Texas. We joked about how you moved to Texas, everyone has a gun—you don’t—but everyone has a gun, they’re going to protect you.
You mentioned that 99.8% of people survived. Is that out of the 1,800 people in your initial study, or was that the hospitalized 501?
[00:47:54] Dr. Richard Fleming: It was the whole 1,800. All three people were on a ventilator, one died at three days, one died at four days, and one died at five days.
[00:48:04] Ashley James: Still, to work with people around the world, 1,800 of them who all tested positive, 501 ended up in the hospital, which you have to be pretty sick to end up in the hospital. I know because a few days after I gave birth, many listeners (some don’t), some might be first time listeners.
On April 13th of this year, I gave birth to our daughter who passed away. So I was struck with intense grief, which put my blood pressure through the roof. Normally my blood pressure is actually slightly low, in the healthy low range. And then I think I might have gotten it from one of the paramedics because there were 13 paramedics in our bedroom because we did a home birth.
Just so you know, it’s something that wouldn’t have been prevented if I had gone into the hospital. She died right as she was born. It’s not anything we could have prevented if I was in a hospital either way and there was no detection that we would have known in advance. That’s the thing I struggle with. I couldn’t have prevented it, and it’s really God’s will. That’s what I have to be with.
There are these times when we can take charge of our health, which is what we’re learning today and all our interviews, and then there are times when we have no control. And that’s when we have to just step back and realize that, yes, our life is in God’s hands. We do everything we can to be healthy, and the outcome sometimes is just not in our control at all.
But a few days later I developed COVID, and everyone who was part of the birth, actually most of them who were part of the birth also developed COVID. My son, zero symptoms. I mean, he’s six, he’s healthy. My husband had a stuffy nose. He mowed the lawn for four hours while in the height of having COVID. He’s like, yeah, I kind of have a runny nose. That was his sickest, but I was bedridden.
I was on all the homeopathy and I was on all the supplements, everything I could possibly get my hands on. And it all kind of helped, and then on day eight, which I heard is the day that a lot of people kind of tank, my blood pressure went down. It was like 96/46 or something. I was practically fainting. My blood pressure just all of a sudden tanked. My O2 was down to 93 and I was having problems breathing all of a sudden. The concern was that I developed a clot from pregnancy, which is possible.
It’s like okay, we should definitely get checked out. I went to the hospital to get checked out to make sure that I didn’t have a blood clot from pregnancy because I had just given birth. I got a CT scan for the first time in my life and that was an adventure. You know what was funny, the entire time I was telling the tech about you and your research. I was like, oh, the isotopes. A layperson trying to explain your Ph.D. research to him and he’s like, okay. I’m like, no, it’s so cool, you got to check it out. So I told him to look at your videos.
But anyway, luckily I didn’t have a blood clot. The doctor comes in and he has a very concerned look on his face. Now my oxygen came back up to 95, so I was doing okay. My lungs were kind of sore, it was a little bit hard to breathe, but I had stabilized basically. He said, well, I really want to put you on this experimental drug. It’s not approved by the FDA and he doesn’t know if it’s going to be paid for by my insurance. I’m not going to get a $20,000 bill. I can’t even pronounce it casirivimab and imdevimab.
[00:51:57] Dr. Richard Fleming: Right, so two antibodies.
[00:51:58] Ashley James: Okay. They wanted to give me that. And so I said, can I please have the paperwork? He prints me out this nice little sales form and I’m looking at it like, well, there’s no statistics on here. So I went to the website, I looked, and I read the studies. They studied two groups of people that were hospitalized, one was 200 and something then the other was 200 something. The ones that were hospitalized and didn’t receive the treatment, 10% of them died. The ones that did receive the treatment, 11% of them died. I’m like, 1% more. I could die. I could have a 1% more chance of dying if I do this.
I look through it and I’m like, you know what, just send me home with an inhaler. I’m going to take my chances. I’m not a guinea pig. I don’t believe in enrolling myself at any—
[00:52:50] Dr. Richard Fleming: Experimental research.
[00:52:51] Ashley James: Experiments, thank you. I’m not a guinea pig. He was really concerned. He’s like, you really need this. We’ve seen this work really well. I felt like he was selling me on it, and I’m like, okay, you know what, I’m going to come back if I get worse, but I really feel like I’m stabilized now. And I didn’t have a fever the whole time, I didn’t have a headache. It was all just breathing stuff. And now that I know I didn’t have a blood clot, I could go home and continue taking all my supplements, just resting, and the inhaler, the albuterol helped tremendously.
I also got on glutathione and almost immediately got better, which is really interesting considering, you see that inflammation absolutely plays a role in the outcomes that people have.
So I get home and then the next day, I get a phone call from the hospital. The pharmacist is trying to sell me on coming back to get the medicine. I’m sitting up on the couch sorting clothes and doing laundry. I’m like, I’m fine. I feel great. I just needed that little help with the inhaler to get me through the tough breathing. I was already on my way back mending, and they’re trying to get me back to get in the study to be part of the experiment. I mean, that they’re trying to sell me on it is pretty interesting.
We, of course, quarantined the whole time, we were at home. But just to see how the medical system and how they were really excited to get me in this experimental thing, right? It’s like, no, thank you. And I got better. It’s interesting. Our son got completely exposed, no symptoms. There are a few people that were in our inner circle during that time that also had no symptoms, so their body must have mounted a response without having to have COVID-19. They were exposed to it but didn’t have to have it.
My husband had minor, minor symptoms. I had more major ones, and the doctor said to me in the ER, you’re not sick enough for me to admit you, but you’re not healthy enough for me to not be worried about you. You should really get on this drug I’m trying to sell you. It’s interesting. Now, I’m very curious, and I’m sure all the listeners are curious. What was the most effective treatment that you guys figured out?
[00:55:18] Dr. Richard Fleming: For outpatient or inpatient?
[00:55:21] Ashley James: Oh, let’s talk about both.
[00:55:24] Dr. Richard Fleming: The combination that we saw for outpatients that were most successful was a combination of primaquine, clindamycin, and hydroxychloroquine. And the reason for that is that you have to look at what the drugs actually do. So, SARS-CoV-2 everybody I think has heard the term ACE2 receptor. If you’ve heard of a site on the cell that the spike protein attaches to, it’s typically the ACE2, the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor that we talk about. Although, there are actually four receptors on the cell.
So the first one is ACE2. The second one involved is something called TMPRSS2 or transmembrane serine protease 2. The third one is called a furin cleavage site. And the fourth one is called neuropilin-1. So, the second one TMPRSS2 explains why black people tend to get more infected with SARS than white people because their nose and upper respiratory system have more TMPRSS2 receptors, than do Asians, Latinos, or Caucasians. So they’re more prone to the virus.
And it turns out that when I did my research to look at that upfront, that clindamycin which is an antibiotic works because it interferes with the TMPRSS2 receptor, and it interferes with the ability of the virus to replicate itself called the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, which is the enzymes involved in ribosomes that take the RNA and translate it to protein. For example, the spike protein. And that turned out to be correct. Obviously, I didn’t know it before we started it, but it turned out to be correct.
Then primaquine is an aminoquinoline like hydroxychloroquine but it’s a one-time dose. And, it has a longer-term effect and so it interferes with the binding of the virus to the ACE2 receptor and also interferes with the virus being able to replicate itself. And then hydroxychloroquine does a number of things that interfere with the attachment of the spike protein to the ACE receptor. It decreases an inflammatory process through inhibition of what’s called a toll 7 receptor. It interferes with clotting by interfering with what’s called glycoprotein IIb/IIIa, all of this was back in the original theory in 1994. It slightly increases the pH of something called cytosol, which is where the virus finds itself once it gets inside your cells.
The first thing the virus has to do is get the envelope off to release its genetic material onto our cells. And it turns out that hydroxychloroquine, by slightly increasing that pH—and we’re not talking about anything that you would significantly know, I mean, this is minuscule—it interferes with the ability of the envelope to come off. It opens up a passageway, which is called an ionophore because it’s an ion that passes through. So the ion is zinc, so it opens up the passageway for zinc to come from outside the cell to inside this cell, which interferes with the ability of the virus to replicate itself again to RdRp, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.
It also decreases some of the other cytokines or chemicals released by cells to cause tissue damage. So, that’s how it works. It’s not because it’s an anti-malarial because it’s a drug that works by these mechanisms independent of what we call it. So those three together had that effect.
It turned out that for individuals that actually develop full-blown COVID, the best combinations turned out to be three. Two of them included patients who had received an aminoquinoline like primaquine or hydroxychloroquine as outpatients and then got admitted. And if they have that, then two drugs, one called interferon alfa-2b, which interferes with the ability of the virus to replicate itself again. And another one is called tocilizumab. It’s an interleukin-6 inhibitor, which is a prothrombotic scenario. So again decreasing the ability of the virus to attach to replicate itself and to cut down on the inflammation and subsequently blood clotting. So there was that.
Another combination if they’d gotten an outpatient aminoquinoline like primaquine, hydroxychloroquine, or the combination was to put them on methylprednisolone, which has that same effect on decreasing inflammation and blood clotting. And then the third group were those people who hadn’t received an aminoquinoline as outpatients, and what proved to be successful was the combination of primaquine and clindamycin. And then the same two drugs tocilizumab and interferon alfa-2b. Those were extremely successful. It doesn’t mean that other treatments don’t work, but I did not include them in the protocol to be randomized too.
There was one drug that we were going to use that we elected, the IRB that initially set this up, we decided to avoid it because there were questions about it way back when. I don’t know if that was the right thing to do or not, but we elected not to keep it in the study, so it was deleted between the time that we set it up and the time we actually implemented it.
And then we’re going to look at taking the same approach with mechanisms of action and looking at how vaccines actually work. I’ve assembled based upon the best science that we have more than likely drugs that we think will be beneficial, and we’ll release that. Obviously not prescribing to anybody or telling you to do it. That’s up to you. It’s a semi-free society, emphasis on the semi. So that people can download the material, take it to the doctor, and talk to their doctor. They and their doctor can decide, presuming they’re allowed to anymore. But somewhere somehow, people will be able to take a look at this, investigate it, and see if it doesn’t help.
[01:02:35] Ashley James: If your doctor is not willing to look at the studies that you bring to them, you have to fire them and get a better doctor. You want one that is willing to keep their mind open enough to look at new research.
[01:02:51] Dr. Richard Fleming: Right. Well, the problem is that there’s so much interference to the practice of medicine that shouldn’t be there. That some of these poor doctors are just simply scared. The question is, what are you scared of? Are you scared of losing your job? Because I know a lot of them are. Are you scared of losing your medical license? I know a lot of them are. Are you scared of losing the life of your patient? You have to balance that in there, and I’m not telling anybody I have the answer for you because I’ve certainly run my role with the Federal government and got taken to task for it, but I would do it again because it was the right thing.
You just have to decide whether you want to practice medicine under heir Hitler and the regime of Nazi Germany and fascism, or whether you want to allow physicians to practice medicine the way that they think. Because if you look at the Constitution of the United States, I have a law degree also and I thoroughly read the Constitution of the United States. I will assure you that I’ve seen nothing in the US Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to determine what healthcare is. It doesn’t mean that they don’t think that they have the right to do it, I’m just telling you that I don’t see anything in the US Constitution either in Article One, Article Two, and clearly not in Article Three because the courts don’t run medicine, although they might think they do. Nothing that gives the Federal government authority to run medicine.
So I’m not sure why we go to medical school and actually get an MD, DO, or whatever people get to practice medicine if they’re not going to be allowed to practice medicine.
[01:04:41] Ashley James: Yeah, this is scary.
[01:04:45] Dr. Richard Fleming: You don’t call up a three-letter Federal agency when you’re sick, do you? I mean, when was the last time you felt sick and you called up NIH, CDC, or any of the others?
[01:05:00] Ashley James: I love that you talk about hydroxychloroquine, and this is something that a lot of people don’t know. What they know is what they’ve been told. What they’ve been told by the media is hydroxychloroquine, and this was right around when Trump was saying—if you remember the last year, I know some people have PTSD and don’t like to remember 2020. But when you think back, I mean really, it’s a big fuzzy blur to me, right?
But when you think back to early 2020, it was right after my birthday, March, 8, the restaurants here closed and the bars closed. They said we need two weeks. We’re going to shut down for two weeks. Governor Inslee, we’ll reopen at the end of March, beginning of April. And then April 1 came.
[01:05:51] Dr. Richard Fleming: They didn’t say what year though, did they?
[01:05:53] Ashley James: Oh, shoot. You got me there. Oh my gosh. And then it was, okay, it’s going to be May, and then, okay, it’s going to be August. I just got angrier and angrier as I saw what was going on. The manipulation and taking away our freedoms. Was it North Dakota or South Dakota, I’m sort of having a brain fart right now, but it was one of those states sort of in the middle there, to the north, where the governor said, I’m not shutting down anything. I’m not going to affect any business. If you want to wear a mask, you wear a mask. If you don’t, you don’t. If you want to stay open, stay open. Let the people decide, but the government is not going to interfere with your businesses.
Fauci said, your hospitals will be overflowing and you’re going to kill people because of this. And she had one of the lowest rates and did not have her hospitals overflowing. People decided to wash their hands and take their own precautions, but they still went out, did stuff, went to restaurants, and lived their lives. Maybe they took a little bit more precautions, but that’s just showing that the shutdowns have not been working because there are states where they didn’t shut down and the numbers are either similar or lower.
I mean, it just boggles my mind. And the numbers, don’t get me started because it’s so easy to manipulate these things. Positive cases don’t mean hospitalization, although there’s a percentage that we can look at. But to say the cases are up doesn’t mean that the hospital stay is up. So you talk about hydroxychloroquine, and it was Trump early on.
[01:07:57] Dr. Richard Fleming: Let me stop you for just a moment. I know you’re in a good role, but I want to point out something. Kary Mullis invented the PCR test, Polymerase Chain Reaction test, for the express purpose of finding genetic material. Now, Dr. Mullis, I think he got a Nobel Prize for this. The PCR test is an outstanding test, and for those of you who don’t think so, go read the patent. What you’ll see is that its expressed purpose was to simply find genetic codes.
Kary Mullis also said that if you look at his data on the patent—having a patent I’m particularly sensitive to this that you put down what needs to be known. You may not put down everything but you put down what needs to be known. Didn’t use more than 15 to 20 cycles to do it. And it was not a test for diagnosing disease. Now, around 2006 I think it was, his patent expired.
Right around that same time, the Federal government of the United States got a patent for PCR specifically related to viruses. So it’s interesting to note that with the Emergency Use Authorization, PCR tests were given an umbrella under the EUA by the Federal government who just happens to have a patent on PCR tests. I just think that’s fascinating. Mullis, fortunately for him, died in 2019 before this fiasco really took off.
Unfortunately, I see a lot of similarities in Mullis and myself in our perspectives on many of the people on the powers that be, which is I don’t think they’re smart enough to really understand it but they certainly know how to make money and manipulate the scenario. So, with that said, I just want to put that out there because I think it’s interesting for people to realize that the US Federal Government has a patent on PCR testing. Wow, you can use this for this virus. Okay, go ahead.
[01:10:19] Ashley James: When you hold the patent, you can profit from it.
[01:10:22] Dr. Richard Fleming: There you go, no conflict of interest there at all.
[01:10:28] Ashley James: I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, the cycles that were being used were really kind of oversensitive.
[01:10:38] Dr. Richard Fleming: Well, they didn’t stop at 15 to 20 like Mullis said, did they?
[01:10:42] Ashley James: Yeah, and so we were getting false positives?
[01:10:48] Dr. Richard Fleming: Well, here’s the thing. I wouldn’t call them false positives because they detected the genetic sequence, okay. But when the test is designed and the man says, look, at 20 cycles, you get everything you’re going to get that’s of value, then why do you go beyond that?
[01:11:10] Ashley James: Could they be picking up on a different coronavirus or something that’s not necessarily infecting them but just hanging out in their body because they already have an immune response to it?
[01:11:21] Dr. Richard Fleming: Well, I mean, anything’s possible if it has the same genetic sequence that you’re looking for, okay. An additional point is that it doesn’t define whether you’re going to get sick and need treatment, okay. It doesn’t define whether it’s a virus that’s from living tissue that was in the process of replicating or it’s been laying outside of a cell where it’s dead. It doesn’t give you any of that, which is what Mullis told people. It was to look for specific genetic sequences. It’s an outstanding test. It was used for something it was not designed for, and when his patent expired, the Federal government got up with a very specific twist on it to make money on it.
[01:12:13] Ashley James: It’s interesting. I also find the timing interesting that when the next administration after Trump came in, very soon after, they announced that they were lowering the testing into those ranges that were more accurate.
[01:12:35] Dr. Richard Fleming: Well, a very interesting thing that you should notice when the current administration came into power, and I haven’t looked at this for a while, but the vaccine studies stopped recruiting on the National Clinical Trial website. They were actively recruiting patients before that, but on or around the 20th of January, Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen all stopped recruiting, Well, they didn’t need to because you’re either in the experimental group or the control group right now.
[01:13:04] Ashley James: Yeah, we’re all in the experiment. It’s kind of sick. A year ago when this was very new, we’re all just going what is going on? I did an interview with a Naturopath who’d come up with his supplement recommendations to support the body during this time, help the immune system—zinc, vitamin D, the things that we know work. And then also the things that he’d seen were helpful if someone had it.
Interesting that the FDA is really going after NAC right now when NAC is such a powerful, it helps our body with the antioxidant effect, especially in the lungs. It’s a decongestant. There are so many ways the body uses NAC in a very supportive manner and people have been using it preventatively and also when they have COVID. And then now, it’s being threatened to be taken off the market. Not because it hurts people, but because they’re saying, well, we studied this originally as a drug. It’s an amino acid, leave it alone. You can’t patent this, stop it.
Back when we’re all looking around I had that interview and I said to the doctor, I said, years from now, if we ever get to look at the true numbers, if they ever actually have real numbers, years from now, we’re going to study 2020 (now 2021) as the world’s biggest experiment on its people. This is how I felt then and I definitely feel that way now a year later. We have to know more and more information. We have to be tapped in. We can’t just blindly listen to the mainstream media.
Example being, early on when Trump said—coming back to the story—he said, oh, promising information is coming out about using hydroxychloroquine, and all of a sudden the media starts attacking him and attacking what he said. Oh, he’s telling us that we’re going to inject bleach into our bodies or whatever. Oh my gosh, it’s just ridiculous. He was sort of using the layman’s terms of trying to describe some things that he was told work.
He’s just trying to encourage people. Hey, there’s some interesting stuff out there that has some good information. Stay positive, stay safe. And the media went nuts and said he’s trying to kill us all. He’s telling us hydroxychloroquine is going to help us, and then also the study comes out.
Maybe you can fill in the gaps because you know more about this than I do, but when a study came out there’s like 90,000 participants and they said that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work. The media latched on to that and said, Trump’s a loser. He’s telling us a bunch of stuff that’s going to kill us. Don’t listen to him, or whatever they were saying. I just thought this was really interesting. Why is the mainstream media so angry about this drug and this treatment? They’re not doctors. Who are they, right? And then it turns out that a prominent study was completely made up. Maybe you could fill in the gaps of that.
[01:16:47] Dr. Richard Fleming: Yeah. Unfortunately, that’s gone on both sides of that so you can’t take much. You have to take it all with a grain of salt because there’s been so much manipulation of the scientific literature, particularly in the last decade or so. I actually resigned from The Lancet and from the British Medical Journal Open Quality journal due to my concerns about the ethics of what’s being published.
So, with all the politics going on and some of it is related to the fact that the Chinese have gotten so many grants from the United States, and some of that money has been invested into actually buying control of the journals, it’s very hard to know what’s—
[01:17:33] Ashley James: What?
[01:17:34] Dr. Richard Fleming: Yeah, you got it. You heard it right. What’s really valid and what’s not. As a researcher, I get a chuckle out of people who criticize individuals publishing in journals that aren’t at the top journals. I mean, I just resigned from two of them because of my concerns about it. When Watson and Crick first published their paper on DNA, they published it in a then relatively unknown journal called the Journal of the American Medical Association. But when Watson and Crick published their little one-column piece, JAMA was not well known. So this is not how you figure out what’s valid and what’s not. The scientific method is what determines that by reproducibility.
So, taking that in mind, let’s address a very specific issue about hydroxychloroquine. Hydroxychloroquine is supposedly a big no, no. Let me back it up. For SARS-CoV-1, Anthony Fauci thought that hydroxychloroquine was a great drug, so I’m not certain what happened between his go-go for that versus it doesn’t work. Oh, wait a minute, there’s that conflict of interest about him being connected with Pfizer and Moderna. Never mind that comment then.
The scenario of hydroxychloroquine is that it will stretch out part of your heart rhythm, the cell’s activity that is called the corrected QT complex. Q and T are areas that we measure on the electrocardiograms. When it gets too long, you get a bad rhythm. If it gets too short, you get a bad rhythm. We have this kind of nice, in-between zone. So, the argument is that hydroxychloroquine will prolong your QT and develop a heart rhythm that could kill. That’s possible, but so do a lot of other drugs that people take every day that nobody seems to stress out about. Here’s the killer in the argument. The rhythms that they’re worried about from prolonged QT are polymorphic ventricular tachy dysrhythmia and torsades de pointes. That’s me as the cardiologist now speaking.
There’s not a single published case since SARS-CoV-2 hit in 2019 that anybody has published in any medical journal anywhere that I’m aware of, since I keep saying it this way in interviews and nobody is correcting me, I’m presuming nobody else has found one either. Not a single published case report of a single person having either one of these two rhythm problems as a result of taking hydroxychloroquine. So, for millions of people around the world, and I don’t know how many people actually have taken hydroxychloroquine, not a single case example of what causes seizure activity in Anthony Fauci’s brain or somebody else’s brain.
[01:20:37] Ashley James: Some people take it prophylactically because they’re in areas with malaria. This is a very well-studied drug, very well-studied.
[01:20:48] Dr. Richard Fleming: Look, every drug has side effects. The question is, if you have a drug that has a side effect and it’s the drug that’s going to treat something that could kill you, you might want to look at that in that light.
[01:21:08] Ashley James: Right, absolutely.
[01:21:10] Dr. Richard Fleming: Disease that might kill the patient, no, we won’t treat them because this drug might produce your heart rhythm that we’d have to actually do something about. FYI, we included that in the trial protocol too where calcium is one of the things that you use. We made available a drug called esmolol whose side effect is it shortens the QT interval. It’s not like they were going to get hydroxychloroquine for the rest of their life. They were in a hospital with COVID-19 and their QT interval was being monitored because the cardiologist was a member of the team in each one of these places.
That if a decision needed to be made that whoops, look at that QT interval—and by the way, we did collect all that data and it didn’t result in anybody having to stop the drug—you could start IV esmolol, intravenous esmolol, IV in the vein and give them a drug for the period of time they’re getting hydroxychloroquine. They weren’t going to be discharged on it, they weren’t going to be discharged with an IV. If the worst amount of time you have to do is treat for 7 to 10 days, that’s not the end of the world, particularly if it’s saved somebody’s life.
The irony here is that I’ve seen patients that come in with 20 or 30 drugs and half the drugs are to treat side effects from the first set of drugs. It’s like, okay, this is too much chaos going in for my little brain to handle. Maybe we should simplify the regimen. Anyway, I think that the hydroxychloroquine and the nonsense related it to death, even if it could cause the death of anybody.
[01:22:54] Ashley James: Well, thank you for the clarification. So what we have to understand is if you think hydroxychloroquine isn’t effective to help people with COVID-19, it’s because of what you’ve been told. If it’s because of what you’ve been told in the media in the last year, understand that they’re going off of a fake study, of a study that was completely—
[01:23:21] Dr. Richard Fleming: Yeah, it was made up. You’d have to check the motives of those people. But here’s the other thing. Hydroxychloroquine is an FDA-approved drug. Physicians use drugs for what’s called off-label purpose. In other words, a drug approved for one thing and then used for something else. All right. There’s a drug called Procardia or nifedipine. Nifedipine is the drug name, Procardia is the trade name. It came in an orange capsule and it was useful for blood pressure, for chest pain, for angina from the heart, but it frequently dropped the blood pressure too fast, and so it wasn’t the favorite drug for a lot of people.
But here’s the thing, if somebody came in with really high blood pressure, you could either run down the hall and start an IV and run nitroprusside, nitroglycerin, or a variety of medications into them, which you usually required putting them in the intensive care unit. Or you could go and get a Procardia capsule that was an orange capsule and stick a needle into it, squeeze it, and the fluid that Procardia would come out of the hole. Have the patient tilt their head back, lift their tongue up, and squeeze that under their tongue, and you could watch their blood pressure just nicely come down so they didn’t have a stroke, a hemorrhagic bleeding stroke.
Now, since I’m sure the FDA is listening to this, let me assure them and the rest of your listeners that we use that, I use that frequently. It was an off-label use. Completely legal because the drug was FDA-approved and physicians get to practice medicine how they want. So, when a drug is approved for one thing, if a physician believes and their patient is willing—I think that’s called informed consent, not that we’re doing that for vaccines—then you can actually use that medication for the patient for some other purpose.
Classic example minoxidil. Minoxidil is a fairly aggressive drug for lowering blood pressure, which you really should have a cardiologist watching you and monitoring your heart to make sure you don’t have what’s called pericarditis as a result—irritation of the lining around the heart because it’s been known to happen. But a side effect was women grew mustaches. Now, what do they use minoxidil for? Put it on the scalp of men’s heads so they grow hair. Not what it was really FDA-designed for or approved for.
Just because big pharma doesn’t want to go back for every indication doesn’t mean that a drug can’t be used for something else. Patients used to come into me with their medicines and I would say, well, what are you taking this for? They would say, well, you’re the doctor, don’t you know? I would look at them go, well, I do, but there’s more than one thing you can use this medicine for. I thought maybe you, since you’re taking the medicine, might have a clue why the doctor told you. No, no clue. That’s right because too many people get prescribed medicines without a thorough understanding of why they’re taking them, and too many people take medicines without a thorough understanding of why they’re taking them.
[01:26:42] Ashley James: Right. The state of our healthcare is very sad. Off-label use is common, it’s done all the time.
[01:26:54] Dr. Richard Fleming: Yeah, so what the heck is the FDA and all the other agencies getting involved with this for? And threatening doctors to take away their licenses if they use it and threatening pharmacies and then pharmacists won’t fill prescriptions. I’m sorry, pharmacists, you’re not practicing medicine, you’re practicing pharmacy. Your job is to dispense these medications. It’s not for you to be second-guessing physicians for how they’re treating them. And when pharmacists got to the place where they would say, well, I can fill this prescription for hydroxychloroquine but I need to know why you’re prescribing it. No you don’t, it’s a violation of HIPAA. You’re not the patient’s doctor.
[01:27:37] Ashley James: So when we look at it from this perspective, the conclusion we kind of tend to jump to is the government and the media and other bodies are trying to prevent people from acquiring a treatment that is effective, and then telling them what they should do is, stay in your home, wear a mask, don’t go to restaurants. We’re taking your freedoms away. You have to get a vaccine that, by the way, I don’t even want to call it that because it is not yet. It’s an experiment, it is a trial that you are entering into. This blows my mind. This has not been studied enough to know that it’s safe. The FDA hasn’t approved it, right?
State governments are all saying their own different things, but they’re kind of threatening that your freedoms will not be given back to you unless you enter into this experiment. And then you had mentioned, we’re not really practicing true informed consent when it comes to vaccines.
[01:29:04] Dr. Richard Fleming: Yeah, so people don’t really know what the side effects are and the consequences are. Let’s run through Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen vaccines as approved under EUA authorization, not FDA approval. Let’s look at what these Emergency Use Authorization documents actually tell us because I think we’ve got enough data.
If we read through the emergency use authorization documents, what you hear from everybody is vaccine efficacy, vaccine efficacy. Most people don’t know how vaccine efficacy is determined, so here’s how it’s determined. It’s 1 minus what’s called the risk ratio. Well, what’s the risk ratio? Well, the risk ratio is, how many people got diagnosed with COVID who got vaccinated, divided by the number of people who got COVID who didn’t get vaccinated. One minus that times 100 for percent tells you the vaccine efficacy.
You don’t take a drug based upon how often it fails. You take a drug based upon how often it works. If I were to come up to you and say, Ashley, I want you to take this pill to prevent diabetes. Now, it doesn’t work any better than not taking anything, but I want you to take it, would you take it?
[01:30:41] Ashley James: No.
[01:30:44] Dr. Richard Fleming: Okay, good. I actually had one guy once say yes because it’s you, Dr. Fleming. Okay, I missed my point on that one. The point was that he trusted me so he presumed that it wouldn’t do what’s been done.
[01:31:02] Ashley James: That’s a good point though. Just like we trust our mechanic. The mechanic says I have to replace the thingamabob. We’re like, do it.
[01:31:09] Dr. Richard Fleming: Which you should be able to trust your doctor. And I’m going to stand my ground on that one. I’m an MD, I believe you should be able to trust your doctor. I’m not accountable for everybody. But I do believe you should be able to trust your doctor.
[01:31:26] Ashley James: But it’s up to us to pick the right doctor that we trust.
[01:31:29] Dr. Richard Fleming: So let’s look at the emergency use authorization documents and ask the intelligent question. How often will we not get diagnosed with COVID, right? That’s the point. Because the reason why people think they’re getting vaccinated is so they don’t come down with COVID or don’t die. And it’s not that they think they won’t come down with COVID, it’s that they think they won’t get infected. Well, here’s a point, vaccines do not prevent you from getting infected or transmitting the infection. Vaccines expose you to something that you’re likely to see with the infection so that it takes you less time to mount a response. Nothing in that says prevents infection or prevents transmission.
All right. Now, if we ask the question of Pfizer and we look at the numbers, and I don’t have them in front of me. You can go read the EUAs, go look at one of the lectures I’ve done or any of the number of things where I pull these out, or come to the June 5th presentation where we’re going to get them in even greater detail.
You look at the numbers, what you will discover is that seven days after Pfizer’s second injection—which is the day that they chose not me, their documents—and you ask that question, how many people did not get diagnosed with COVID who got vaccinated versus how many people who did? You do the statistical analysis—that’s the scientific method of looking at the numbers, not just going, wow, one more than the other. You actually have to look at how much more compared to how many people in the group, and is that statistically significant.
When you do that, you will find out that there’s no difference, statistically, in the number of people who were diagnosed with COVID, who got vaccinated or didn’t. If you do the same thing for Moderna, same results. If you do the same thing for Janssen at 14 days, a slight difference that is statistically significant at 14 days, but at 28 days, 2 weeks later, that difference is gone. No difference in the number of deaths.
So the EUA documents show that there is no statistical difference in you getting COVID or dying whether you get vaccinated or not. I think that’s the end of the conversation.
[01:34:00] Ashley James: It doesn’t stop you from getting it, it doesn’t stop you from transmitting it. It is maybe making it so that your body can mount a response against it faster.
[01:34:13] Dr. Richard Fleming: Although I would love to see the actual data for that because scientists like myself measure T cells, antibody responses, and titers and none of that data is in the EUA documents, and I have seen minimal, I mean miniscule information in the published scientific literature medical papers. In fact, nothing that actually gives the raw data numbers to look at to go, is this real, is this valid? Just percentages.
[01:34:41] Ashley James: Yeah. And then if we look at VAERS, we can see the injuries from it.
[01:34:48] Dr. Richard Fleming: VAERS is an interesting thing. Interesting information about VAERS is that if you look at this Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, a lot of people are not turning in material because they have been told that, oh, that’s not the vaccine. A lot of doctors I’ve heard trying to enter data into it and it’s bouncing back, so they’re not actually getting it in there.
Back in the mid-1970s, there was something called swine flu. I was an orderly working in the hospital, taking care of several of these patients who had been vaccinated for swine flu and had something called Guillain-Barre syndrome, which is a neurologic abnormality that affected their ability to walk, talk, eat, drink, and even breathe.
We lost in the United States right around 25 people from the swine flu vaccine, and they pulled it off the market. We’ve lost how many thousands of people now following these SARS vaccines? It’s over 3,000, I’m not sure if it’s over 4,000. I’d have to look at any given day. I’ve kind of given up watching because the death rates, just if you track bars over the decades, you’ll see it’s relatively flat and then just taste this spike in 2021. Are you with me?
Why in the 1970s did 25 deaths get the attention of people? And today in 2021 with more deaths than were killed in the Twin Tower attacks, we’re still oblivious to saying, wait a minute, we’re using something that is associated with deaths, it’s associated with inflammation and blood clots. And FYI, that stuff’s in the EUA documents. Janssen, Pfizer, Moderna put this stuff in the EUA documents, these side effects, which raises a point I want to make on safety and efficacy.
I want to encourage people to quit saying safety and efficacy. I would like to encourage people to start saying efficacy and safety. Because if it’s not effective, it doesn’t matter whether it’s safe or not, you wouldn’t take it. And the first thing you do in clinical trials, which by the way weren’t done, is to determine if it’s effective. What dose is effective, and then you spread it out beyond phase one.
We took the development of a vaccine from a 3- to a 10-year process—it’s typically 10, but we’ve done it in 3—to a less than 10 months process for all 3 of these. In fact, Janssen started the later phase, phase three, before it started 2A, And it goes phase 1, phase 2, phase 3. And so they started the last phase before they started the second phase. My little scientific brain has challenges with that because that’s not how it’s done. But that’s how it was done. It doesn’t matter how the scientific method is supposed to work. What we did is we took an infection that was man-made, we quarantine the healthy, we pan cultured everybody using a test that its inventor said not to use for that purpose, and then we shoveled money into vaccines that we now know don’t statistically change whether you’re going to get COVID or die.
[01:38:53] Ashley James: But they’re still pushing them and they’re opening up younger and younger ages for part of the trial. This is a trial, this is an experiment. The entire population is being pushed to enter a drug experiment.
[01:39:10] Dr. Richard Fleming: Mom and dad, if you’re doing this with your kids, I would never experiment on my kids.
[01:39:20] Ashley James: Thank you. It’s scary.
[01:39:24] Dr. Richard Fleming: Somebody asked me sometime within the last week or so what I thought about it, and anybody who’s listened to me knows that my answers are never really short. I might give you an answer but then I will explain it because I think you’re due that. It’s not because I want to hear myself talk. If you ask me a question, I believe it’s my responsibility not only to give you that answer so that you’re getting an answer as opposed to listening to the explanation, and you’re going, is there an answer in here? So I give you the answer and then I explain it to you so that you know it.
Somebody asked me the other day about what I thought about vaccinating children 12 to 18, and I said I’m going to deviate just a little bit. It’s stupid, and then I explained it. If you don’t care about other people, at least care about your children. I understand everybody’s scared. One of the things I emphasize is that people recognize, everybody recognizes that most people are scared. And if you see people that are sheltering in place and are masked up—I mean, I approached a woman at the store yesterday and I thought she was going to jump through the flowers. I mean, she worked behind the flower ornaments at the store, and I simply wanted to ask if they had something in the store. She almost jumped over the counter to get away from me. It’s like, ma’am, okay, got it. You’re scared, I got it.
[01:41:09] Ashley James: This is right back to what you said—I can’t remember the Nazi General, I can’t remember his name.
[01:41:16] Dr. Richard Fleming: Göring.
[01:41:17] Ashley James: During the trials he said, if you put a population in fear, they will lap up whatever it is that is the solution. Whatever that solution you bring they’re just going to eat it right up because you put them in a place of fear. They’re fearing for their life. Same with 9/11. 9/11 was a great example of taking away freedoms because we’re like here, take them, take them. Take all our freedoms. Wiretap us, we don’t care. Surveil us. Take all of our freedoms away, we don’t care. We want to be safe. We want to feel safe.
[01:41:54] Dr. Richard Fleming: The Founding Fathers frequently said, people who will sacrifice freedoms for security will have neither. US Military Army Reed Hospital was very much involved in some of the early research and control of human beings in the 1940s. And for your listeners, I have most of my master’s studies in psychology, experimental not clinical. Which means I’m a researcher and don’t want to sit down and listen to you tell me your problems.
The data was very clear, if you take somebody, people, and you tell them there’s a problem that is threatening them. And then you say, but if you do this, you will be safe, and we can measure this so we can tell you if you’re doing it right, and gives you positive reinforcement. That is an extremely effective way of getting people to do whatever you want them to do. If you think that the military does this stuff and then doesn’t apply it, again, the DOD does not work with the Girl Scouts. They’re not selling your cookies.
[01:43:10] Ashley James: Is it true that when you get the vaccine you sign something that says that the DOD is tracking you for the next two years?
[01:43:19] Dr. Richard Fleming: I don’t know because I’m not getting the vaccine so I haven’t seen what they’ve had people sign.
[01:43:25] Ashley James: I listened to a lecture a doctor gave who explained that you are entering into an experiment, but you’re also entering into an experiment that the DOD is watching you.
[01:43:34] Dr. Richard Fleming: Hey, I would love to have that paper. I’d love to see that document. Whoever you did that wants to get that to you and then to me, I would love to have it.
[01:43:42] Ashley James: I will see what I can do, absolutely. I mean, I understand people are entering into experiments, but the DOD is involved in monitoring the results of it?
[01:43:52] Dr. Richard Fleming: The DOD paid $39 million of the $61 million that went to Peter Daszak. And they provided him with a policy advisor.
[01:44:02] Ashley James: You know, always follow the money. Follow the money. That if you ever want to be a researcher and you want to think for yourself and not just believe what you’ve been told, follow the money. Money doesn’t lie. The money trails don’t lie.
So there’s a lot of confusion out there. I’m in a bunch of Facebook groups because I’m interested, and you know what, there’s so much misinformation. When we start talking about conspiracies, again, I’m not talking about conspiracy theory, I’m talking about conspiracy factor. It’s a felony or it’s a group of people who are conspiring to do harm, to do something nefarious and not good. We look to see them. We see there’s a conspiracy over here. An example is governments experimenting on their people, this is documented, many governments including our own.
I love the United States. I love this country. I’m incredibly patriotic. I’m originally Canadian. I love living here. I want to live here forever. I look at that American flag and I actually get emotional because of what it represents, because I love the Constitution. I love the Founding Fathers and how they broke away. If you really study the history, I’m from a country that still worships the queen. So to come here, it’s like this is the country that broke away from or tried to break away from that and create something that gave more freedoms to its people. And I believe that we all deserve, that is our right to have freedom as long as we’re not hurting someone else, right? Just like New Hampshire, New Hampshire Live Free or Die, that is what I believe in.
[01:45:48] Dr. Richard Fleming: Iowa is where I’m from originally, and the banner there is Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain.
[01:45:55] Ashley James: Right. And each state you find this theme especially in pockets of areas. Certain states are more forward like having an actual motto, but this is what I love about this country. But we have to always protect our rights. We cannot just assume that they’re just given to us. We have to constantly protect them. So anyway, lots of misinformation out there. I’m the most open-minded skeptic. I’m going to listen to information, but then I’m going to use my critical thinking, which we were not taught to critical think. That’s actually something as adults we really should learn how to critically think.
It was systematically taken out of the education system when they introduced the Prussian education system. You can study or read John Taylor Gatto’s books, he talks about that and he has lectures on YouTube. He has since passed away, but he has some amazing eight-hour lectures on YouTube and interviews about how they have designed the education system to make good little factory workers or make good little students that think the way they want them to think and not teaching us critical thinking. We have to learn it ourselves. And I know I’m going off on a bit of a tangent here.
But what I see in Facebook and these communities is they’re talking about that there’s a fear that if you don’t have the vaccine and you’re in close contact with people that do, that you could also be affected. For example, some polio vaccines shed, and I understand that this isn’t a live virus vaccine, but that there’s concern that people can get even sick or harmed that are not vaccinated from being in close contact with those who have. Is there anything in your research, is that completely phooey or is there some basis to that?
[01:48:04] Dr. Richard Fleming: Well, to begin with, my first statement is we don’t have any scientific evidence one way or the other, which is something that raises enough questions that we should be trying to figure out if there’s something going on. I will tell you that back in March of this year when I was giving some lectures here, I was trying to emphasize that I didn’t think that these vaccines—Pfizer, Moderna, or Janssen—merely contain the genetic information for the spike protein. It was my opinion then and it’s my opinion now that there’s insufficient information in just that segment for that structural protein, the spike protein, to get that much of a response.
So my proposal was that there is probably something more in these vaccines that enhances that. Now, there is something called transmissible vaccines and something called SAM or self-amplifying mRNA vaccines, hence, SAM. What SAM is, is it has not only the mRNA for what you want built like the spike protein called the structural antigen. But it also contains the earlier part of the genetic sequence that makes an enzyme called replicase to replicate.
Combined together, they produce a substantially larger amount of the spike protein to get an immunologic response. One of the interesting things about getting SARS-CoV-2 person-to-person is that you’ll get,I don’t know how many viruses for a viral load, but it’s not billions. So every one of those viruses gets into your sinuses and potentially the rest of your body and attaches to an ACE2 receptor and starts that sequence I talked about, and it has to have that sequence and it downloads its genetic mRNA.
The lipid nanoparticle vaccines Pfizer and Moderna carry 13.1 billion mRNAs, and the Janssen double-stranded DNA carries 50 billion for every one of those inside an adenovirus that attaches. So we’re talking about billions versus thousands. And so what we’re seeing where people were dying with COVID-19 with comorbidities is we’re seeing a different group of people pop up with responses to the vaccines in a younger age group that are healthy, and that should be what we see with that type of phenomenon because if they’re healthy and they haven’t had a hyperinflammatory disease process going on, then you would expect them to mount a response to those billions of genetic sequences that they just injected into themselves.
Bearing in mind that this is a gain-of-function of spike protein so it’s manmade, so it’s a bioweapon. What they’re doing is injecting themselves with billions of genetic code sequences for a man-made bioweapon. Now, whether that is so amplifying the numbers that there’s spike protein that is shedding or something else is shedding, whether it’s that or if they’re doing transmissible vaccines where it’s already been done and studied were certain viruses you can vaccinate the animal and another animal will come up and touch it and be vaccinated by virtue of touching where the vaccine was injected. Their favorite animal they’ve done this and so far the most are bats.
They’ve also done some studies in rabies viruses and SARS-CoV-2, and a lot of other viruses where they’re looking at transmissible vaccines. And when you read the papers, they’ll tell you the virus and they’ll tell you the vector. Is it a virus, a lipid nanoparticle, or is it something else getting into this cell? And then they’ll tell you the animal—dog, mouse, human, cat. Did you notice what I mentioned there?
[01:52:35] Ashley James: Human.
[01:52:36] Dr. Richard Fleming: Because for rabies and SARS-CoV-2, the animal that’s listed is human. All the other viruses, they’ve got one of the other animals, but for rabies and SARS-CoV-2, the animal listed is human. Not rhesus monkeys, not humanized mice, not anything else—human. You’re the animal. And this research has been going on for two to three decades funded by our government and the groups of people—Helmsley, Gates, and the Epstein’s of the world for two to three decades. This did not just happen. This has been going on.
So, do we need data to really find out what’s going on, absolutely, we do? Can I tell you exactly what’s going on? No, I can’t. Can I tell you this two to three decades worth of work that’s been going on with this type of stuff? Yes, I can.
[01:53:46] Ashley James: Do you know what’s interesting is that the people who are not going to get the vaccine on Facebook and all these groups are afraid of the people who are getting the vaccine and are avoiding them. And the people who are getting the vaccine, there’s a lot of them who are like, I’m going to still wear my mask even though they told me I don’t have to, and I’m going to stay away from those non-vaxxers because they’re going to be contagious. It’s interesting what has been created is this environment of fear—fear your neighbor. We’re the 99%.
[01:54:18] Dr. Richard Fleming: Fear your neighbor, turn on your neighbor, tell on your neighbor.
[01:54:23] Ashley James: It’s very Orwellian. I love Orwell and his work. If you look at it, it’s very sci-fi. I’m a big sci-fi fan and this feels like we’re living in a sci-fi future, it’s very weird. That they’re creating this to fear each other instead of coming together. I mean, when we are divided fighting about political things of the past like abortion rights or race. It’s always been this black and white, let’s fight about two different opposing thoughts. The dichotomy, right? It’s a dilemma. When you have two choices it’s a dilemma, and as long as they keep us fighting—and that’s why I never understood the two-party system.
Being from Canada, there’s like 20 parties or something to choose from. There are three of them that are always sort of somewhat in power, but you have a choice. But here, you’re fighting over one thing or the other—less taxes, more taxes; bigger government, smaller government. And as long as they keep us fighting among ourselves, we won’t rise up together to make a change. We won’t look at what we all stand for.
Let’s say you’re one way, pro-vaccine, and I’m the other way, anti-vaccine, or whatever. Let’s say you’re pro-abortion, I’m anti-abortion, whatever it is. We’re on two opposing sides. But if we actually come up to the bigger picture, we both have the same goal. We both want health, right? We both want to protect people. We want freedom. When we look at the bigger picture, we all actually want the same thing. We have to come up and see, don’t let fear control us.
But it’s very interesting and I feel this has been created, this fear has been orchestrated to keep us from questioning, from thinking for ourselves because that’s what it looks like when you look at the environment the last year and all this craziness that goes on. And now that people are saying that they’re going to stay away from each other and they’re afraid of each other, even though those that are not getting the vaccine are afraid of all the other people. There’s so much fear keeping us silent and keeping us from learning or questioning. So we got to come out of fear.
So it’s interesting that there is a potential for someone who’s unvaccinated to be exposed to in close quarters to someone who’s been vaccinated. That there can be something that transmits. I saw some things printed out from one of the vaccines as part of their trials that talked about it, but I don’t know enough of the science to completely understand it.
[01:57:23] Dr. Richard Fleming: I’ve seen some of that too and I have responded to people by saying, well, it doesn’t really say this is happening, but it does raise a question in my mind scientifically as to why those statements were made.
[01:57:43] Ashley James: You and I could talk for hours, I realized we’ve been talking for quite a while. Seriously, this could be a 16-hour interview. I want to respect your time. I love learning from you, I hope the listeners do too. Actually, I know they will because our listeners are just like me wanting to know as much as possible to support their health, and they’re used to long interviews.
I lost my sense of smell—it was kind of freaky—having COVID, and I tripled my zinc. I was taking 30mg a day, and I tripled it. I took one in the morning, one in the afternoon, one in the evening— spread it out. And two days later I got my sense of smell back. I thought that was interesting. My husband lost his sense of smell too. I told him to triple his zinc, he did, and it came back right away. I thought that was really interesting. What are your thoughts on homemade quinine? The simmering of the grapefruit peel and then drinking that a few ounces a day. Is there any basis that if someone couldn’t get their hands on hydroxychloroquine, is that chemically similar enough to hydroxychloroquine—homemade quinine?
[01:58:55] Dr. Richard Fleming: The bottom line answer is I don’t know. One of the things hopefully your listeners are picking up and you as well is that I’m science-oriented. And in the absence of scientific information that gives me an answer on something I won’t pretend to know it because I don’t know it.
[01:59:15] Ashley James: Absolutely.
[01:59:17] Dr. Richard Fleming: Even many of the medications, I don’t know whether they work or not. I know people who claim that certain drugs work, but they didn’t measure actual tissue effects, so I don’t know whether it worked. Half the people who received nothing as outpatients got better, so did they get better because they got nothing? I mean, an outcome doesn’t mean that it’s the result of what you did, unless you can measure something there because there are all sorts of other variables that go on that you don’t know. I mean, was it something else that happened or a combination of things that happened? And that’s why science is supposed to be more rigorous and not guessing.
One of the comments I make about Remdesivir is, well, I know it got cleared EUA for SARS-CoV-2. But in our study, if somebody did not have an aminoquinoline or anything else before they get randomly assigned to receive Remdesivir, 28% of them got better on it. You can take that for whatever it’s meaningful to you, but to myself as a research scientist physician, if you can get better, get worse, or stay the same, you have a 33% and 3% chance of each, and 28% is performing at less than chance.
But, again, thanks to the powers that be, it got cleared for SARS-CoV-2. And I would argue that there’s no scientific data that shows that it’s beneficial. I don’t know if the home approach for trying to get an equivalent aminoquinoline compound out of that would work, number one; two would be adequate dosage-wise to have an effect, I don’t know. I just don’t know.
[02:01:24] Ashley James: Well, I appreciate that. I’ve been getting the feeling since I’ve been following your YouTube videos that you have strong ethics, you’re honest, and you’re here to show us the truth whether we like you or not. I like you, you keep showing me the truth. I like you. Listeners should go to flemingmethod.com, absolutely continue to follow Dr. Richard Fleming.
To conclude our interview. You’ve done so much research around cancer, cardiovascular health, the cause of pretty much all the major illnesses, which is inflammation—it all starts with inflammation. This is what you’ve been saying for years because this is what you see in your research. What can we do to decrease inflammation in the body? What’s really effective, or maybe point us to some resources?
[02:02:19] Dr. Richard Fleming: Well, other than being self-serving and saying go look on Amazon. As far as diet and lifestyles are concerned, again, my parents would probably have a pretty good handle on this, and they didn’t have to go to school like I did. To do the basic things that make sense, which is to not overeat. You actually need about 10 calories per pound per day for your caloric intake. It does not change much from that. Maybe 10%, 20%, 30% if you are a heavy construction worker, which I doubt many people are these days. For total caloric intake, I’ve always advised people to cut down on saturated fat. Saturated fat really doesn’t do much for the human body except provide calories.
I have told people not to eat a lot of refined processed foods, primarily because it’s very easy to consume a large number of calories. If I asked a second grader or a fifth grader what happens if you eat too many calories, they’re usually pretty smart. They’ll say, yeah, you get fat. I asked most adults that and I get the most interesting answers, many of which are not related to getting fat.
Clearly, smoking does not help your body. I’ve not seen a single study that says that smoking is good for people. I mean, I know that it’s a habit that people learn. It’s a drug, it’s addicting, but you can quit. You just have to decide what it is that motivates you for doing that.
I think people should exercise. I like to run, I like to fence, I like to downhill ski, I like to scuba dive. I don’t suggest everybody do that. A lot of people would kill themselves with some of those sports, but you need to be doing something. I’ve always encouraged people to find something at least three times a week for half an hour like running, bicycling, or just walking, and then do something else to be active on the other days. I mean, they used to be that people were so much more active. Clearly, this sheltering in place—a term that I just love because it has very little to do with what you’re doing—did nothing but inactivate people, cause them to eat more, get stressed, and not take care of themselves.
[02:04:50] Ashley James: Increasing comorbidities, which if then they got COVID-19 would increase their chances of dying or having a much harder time with it.
[02:05:00] Dr. Richard Fleming: Yeah, a very well thought out plan. So those types of things. Again, you don’t need nearly as much protein as people think you need. Most people need about 40 grams of protein a day, and plant protein. Your body doesn’t know where those amino acids come from, whether they’re animal products or plant products. I kid you not. When you eat arginine, it doesn’t come with a label that says plant-based versus animal-based.
I chuckled at the milk comment earlier because I’ve gotten way too much abuse from people for saying, not sure why you’re drinking this. We consume more calcium in the United States than the vast majority of people, but what we’ve discovered is that the more protein you have, the more it leeches the calcium out of your bone. The studies that have actually looked at that show that about 800mg a day of calcium with exercise including aerobic and anaerobic—so in other words, exercising your heart and heart rate and then exercising your muscles—are the types of things that keep bone formed and bone forms along what’s called lines of stress. If you use a muscle and a bone, it causes stress along that to be activated and that will lay down the calcium. If you don’t do that, you end up with weak bones, brittle bones, and they break over the course of time.
If you get a hip fracture when you’re older, about half the people will die from the hip fracture because not only is there a broken bone with immobility and blood clots from that, but you can also get fat released from the bones and it can go through your blood vessels. It’s called a fat embolism, and it can kill you. That type of thing.
And I encourage people to be interactive with other individuals because socially, there’s quite a positive feedback for people who get out, and they’re mentally, physically, and (dare I say) spiritually, but that gets into another realm of activity that is positive for people. All of that has been shown to reduce stress levels and improve immune functions. This is the type of stuff that you don’t need somebody like me telling you about.
I never thought in my early life I would have done as much research into these areas as I’d done. It demonstrated some interesting research over the years and I think it was helpful. I mean, it’s certainly provided some of the insight needed to better understand inflammation and disease. A variety of diseases proved to be fortuitous between that and the patent to investigate SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.
[02:07:55] Ashley James: What kind of diet do you eat to prevent disease? Can I just eat like you? I want to like you. First of all, you look so young. You look great in your videos, so I know you’re doing something right.
[02:08:13] Dr. Richard Fleming: I got my hair cut the other day so I think I look better.
[02:08:18] Ashley James: Well, how do you eat? I want to know how you eat for preventing disease and staying healthy.
[02:08:23] Dr. Richard Fleming: Very boring for what most people do. A disappointment, I’m not a red meat eater. I don’t even have a taste for red meat, and that’s not to harm people who say that just cut the fat off so you’re not ingesting the fat. You don’t need the fat, I know you like the flavor of it, but your body doesn’t need it.
As far as meats or proteins are concerned, I do like more lentils and lean meats. I would argue that I’m actually more interested in fish than anything else. I like sushi. A lot of fruits and vegetables, and I always remind people that apples, oranges, and bananas are not the only vegetables out there. There’s this whole list of things that if you walk up and down the stores—although not as much today as there had been, but those days will return—you’ll find a whole bunch of things that actually grew in the ground that you can eat. It’s just amazing. They’re called fruits and vegetables.
I avoid canned foods like the bubonic plague, which I thought was a particularly appropriate pun there for SARS-CoV-2 and the plague because I don’t need the added salt. I don’t add salt to my food. People are used to that because it’s flavored. The reason why people are used to the flavor is that when people settled this country in the United States, they started down the east coast and as they moved westward, well, if you pull up vegetables and fruit they only last so long. So people took animals with them. And then to keep those meats from spoiling, they originally used a lot of pepper in Europe to pepper the foods so the meats would not spoil and become infected with bacteria and kill people.
And then, they discovered this really cheap thing in China called salt, sodium chloride, and they found that it did the same thing. So what our ancestors did is they settled this country in North America was they would then salt the food to preserve it so bacteria didn’t grow, and over the course of time, people got used to that flavor. Many people are of the confused notion that that’s what they need to actually make the meats or whatever foods they’re eating taste normal.
You don’t need to add salt to it. If you’re adding salt to it for flavor, you’ve lost your taste and not due to SARS-CoV-2. Find something else to season it with, there are tons of seasonings, and you’ll appreciate what foods really taste like.
Fruits and vegetables are definitely high. Do I eat bread? Yes, I do eat bread. I’m not gluten-free. I’m not certain that many people are really gluten intolerant. My ancestry is Scandinavian, so I would argue I’m probably very lactose intolerant. I’m not a big milk drinker. I like yogurt, but I can’t stand the taste of milk. That’s just a personal preference.
My children grew up with skim milk when they had it. I would prefer that they drink orange juice, but that’s up to them. I had an ex father-in-law who was a dentist who insisted that everybody needed milk for calcium for their teeth. I just had to look at him and say, where did they teach you this in dental school? Well, I was in dental school. You need calcium, but nowhere other than perhaps if the tooth falls out is there a benefit of milk for a tooth. Because if you immerse it in milk it does protect it pretty well. Why get it to a dentist if there’s a chance of it being implanted? But that’s the misperception that they were taught, and so go for it.
Sokolof I did know, he was the guy who bought a million-dollar—the first of the year football game. I forget what it’s called. The once-a-year football game.
[02:13:12] Ashley James: The big one, the Super Bowl.
[02:13:14] Dr. Richard Fleming: Yeah, Super Bowl. Thank you.
[02:13:16] Ashley James: It’s okay.
[02:13:19] Dr. Richard Fleming: I remember that Phil Sokolof, who passed away many years ago now, bought a $1 million 30-second ad so he could take a container of milk, look at the camera, and throw it over his shoulder. Well, you have a million dollars to throw away on that cute commercial. I don’t know if that answered the question for you.
[02:13:43] Ashley James: I liked that you brought up that there’s only a certain amount of calories we really need. That we can get a lot of our protein, we can get all of our protein, all of our amino acids from plants if we wanted to. We can choose to completely eat plants. If you’re going to choose to eat animals, then focus on the leaner ones and avoid things like milk because there’s actually no nutritional benefit to milk. There’s plenty of studies showing that it’s actually a harmful effect to the immune system. It creates phlegm.
I mean, you can get all that calcium and all those minerals that you’re supposedly getting from the cow, which actually, how the cows are getting it is they’re being supplemented. Because these cows are all grazing in minerally rich soil. They’re not eating grass that’s grown in minerally rich soil. You’re buying factory farm milk where the cows never see the light of day for five years while they’re being impregnated constantly, and they’re being forced to give up the milk. And then they’re being supplemented, they’re being given calcium supplements. So why don’t you just avoid the milk, take a calcium supplement, skip the middleman?
[02:14:53] Dr. Richard Fleming: Bypass the middleman?
[02:14:56] Ashley James: Right. Bypass the torturing of an animal. Seriously, it is. It’s animal torture, you don’t need it. Go drink some almond milk, you’re going to get lots of great nutrients, or water. Water is wonderful for you.
Yeah, you had mentioned Amazon. You have books on Amazon. Stop Inflammation Now! is on paperback on Amazon, and the links to all your books and stuff are definitely going to be in the show notes of today’s podcast at learntruehealth.com. We need to know this information. I love talking to researchers because that’s where we get the real stuff from. Don’t listen to mainstream media. There’s an agenda behind it, they’re being paid.
You don’t like money being involved because money corrupts truth oftentimes because there’s an agenda. You just want to show us the truth without an agenda being behind it. So I really appreciate how candid you are, and I’m looking forward to your talk that’s coming up on June 5th. Listeners got to go to flemingmethod.com. Click on the event 2021 and get that information, especially if you’re going to be in Dallas, Texas or gain access to the video footage. Are you going to live stream it or are you going to record it and provide it later?
[02:16:11] Dr. Richard Fleming: We’re going to record it and we’re hoping to live stream it. We’re talking with a number of people right now who’ve expressed an interest in live streaming it, and we have people all around the world that have asked for that. Our hopes are that we’ll not only be able to live stream it, but receive questions from people around the world at the time that’s happening and then filter that through other people, not myself. Other people that are sitting to the side looking at the questions and going, okay, let’s make this one of the questions that we answer. There’s no way in the world for me to respond to all the questions that come in.
[02:16:55] Ashley James: Right. I see you have a 12:30 PM to 1:30 PM time slot for Q&A, I have a feeling you’re going to be there longer than 1:30 PM.
[02:17:03] Dr. Richard Fleming: Well, I think that’s a hard cutoff.
[02:17:09] Ashley James: Well, then it’ll be a challenge. Everyone around the world, I challenge you to come up with the coolest question to get submitted. It’s like winning a prize. So that’s going to be a lot of fun. You’re going to talk about the real science behind viruses, vaccines, and treatments. We didn’t really even get into your research around how bacteria and viruses affect inflammation and thus affect cardiovascular disease. You did touch on it. There’s a lot more information on videos that you’ve released. There’s this two-hour one you did, that’s how I found you and I just absolutely fell in love with your work. I’ll try to find it and link that in this episode as well. But that’s going to be a great talk, so I’m really looking forward to you doing that on June 5th. Is there anything that you’d like to wrap up today’s interview? Anything you’d like to leave the listener with?
[02:18:06] Dr. Richard Fleming: I think it’s important that people realize that they’re able to make sense out of this, even though viruses are not something that most people are familiar with. But I think there’s a common sense approach to understanding something. Despite all the advantages I’ve had academically, research experience, medical experience, and even a little legal experience that I’ve had in my life, I just always return (believe it or not) to my parents and my grandparents. I ask just very fundamental questions, which is what would my parents or grandparents think about this? They had a really good sense of looking at something and saying that something just was not quite right.
And that has actually been very useful in my life, both from a research and medical perspective. But as far as sorting a lot of this out with SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, which is the agendas of people, what they’re saying, and why are things inconsistent this go around compared to other things that we’ve all experienced. Which is, why were treatments shut down? I mean, treatments were just simply shut down. Why were vaccines pushed from day one? Why did we quarantine the healthy versus the sick? Why did we pan culture everybody when we’ve never done that before? I mean, I guess what we’ve demonstrated is that, yup, it’s a respiratory virus and it passes from person to person. Okay, that was just outstanding.
We could have used those resources much more efficiently to treat people, get them in and out of the hospital, and save lives. But instead, this was the approach. I think taking my parent’s approach, the common sense approach is the way to do it. The goal of the website and these presentations isn’t for you to just listen to me and go, well, he says to do that, that’s what we should do. If there’s any credibility into what somebody is telling you, you should be able to listen to what they’re doing and look at the information yourself and say, yup, that makes sense.
[02:20:29] Ashley James: Okay, I have one more question. I’m sorry. If we could fire Fauci and put you in his place, if you had Fauci’s job tomorrow, what would be your advice to the American people, to the government? Right now, his advice is to get a vaccine, wear a mask, and stay inside your house. What is your advice if you had his job?
[02:20:59] Dr. Richard Fleming: I’ve answered that question as to what I would have done when SARS first hit. Much to the chagrin, many people don’t like the answer that I gave to that one. What I would do immediately at this point in time is I would, the first thing I would do is I would immediately stop the vaccines, and I would demand that they be run through animal model trials because the animal model trials are more alarming than we’ve talked about in this program, number one. Number two, I would reinvest in emergency funding of research treatments to get a better handle on this, and I would allow physicians to treat them based upon the best knowledge base that they had available with agreement and informed consent from their patients.
Quite possibly, I guess the first thing I would do is I would immediately shut down gain-of-function research where there’s an argument for benefit of gain-of-function research, it has gone way astray. The implementation of that has not been what it was meant for. I would immediately pull off funding and shut down all projects, demand that the vaccines be placed under animal studies to demonstrate efficacy and then safety long before we gave it to people. Make certain that physicians and patients were allowed to use the treatments that we know are available, and then invest massively in clinical trials to validate the treatments that there’s already scientific evidence for, and to expand that, to include medical treatments that have not been considered. So those would be my first three things.
[02:22:58] Ashley James: I love it. Oh gosh, can I vote you in, please?
[02:23:02] Dr. Richard Fleming: I would probably be assassinated.
[02:23:09] Ashley James: So, we need to wake up. We really need to think for ourselves. Please, please, please, please think for yourself and just become an open-minded skeptic. Gather information, question everything. Question what Dr. Fleming says, question everything.
[02:23:24] Dr. Richard Fleming: Yeah, it doesn’t hurt my feelings.
[02:23:26] Ashley James: Yeah, seriously, question everything, but keep taking in the information. And also, always follow the money, follow the money trail. The doctors have never before been treated this way, and all of a sudden, their hands are tied when it comes to treating their patients. It’s very weird. Well, it’s also that way with cancer treatments in the United States, that’s a whole other topic. But doctors, their hands are tied when it comes to treating cancer patients, and follow the money trail there as well.
But for the majority of illnesses, we’ve never seen this happen before. This is unprecedented. And then now, it’s like a global experiment. We’re going to stay safe, we’re going to stay healthy, we’re going to keep preventing disease as much as possible by eating healthy and lowering inflammation in the body. Getting your book and going to your website, flemingmethod.com, and continuing to gain learning from you. Especially also YouTube, I love your YouTube lectures where you have slides.
[02:24:38] Dr. Richard Fleming: They have pulled those down.
[02:24:40] Ashley James: That’s why I couldn’t find it. I was looking for that two-hour one, I couldn’t find it.
[02:24:47] Dr. Richard Fleming: We have several on Rumble, and then there are several people like Steve Bannon and David Clements and Del Bigtree that have been interviewing lately, and [inaudible 02:24:56]—just a wide variety. We’ve done some interviews out of Italy and Australia. I have a French interview later on this week. There’s a variety of ways that people are getting different messages out there, they’re just having to use alternative channels.
[02:25:13] Ashley James: Yeah. Well, hopefully you’ll be able to host those videos that you’ve created on your website, or like you said, you got it on Rumble. Get it on LBRY. It’s done through the blockchain, they can’t shut it down. But there are ways to host videos that are unmessable, they can’t mess with it.
[02:25:39] Dr. Richard Fleming: I’m hoping we get a very good turnout on June 5th to help get some information out to people.
[02:25:45] Ashley James: Yes, let’s do it. Let’s all make sure we’re there, either in person or virtually on June 5th. And again, all the information is on flemingmethod.com/event-2021. Dr. Richard Fleming Ph.D., MD, JD, I love your work. I pray that you are safe and that no one comes after you, me, or anyone that you talk to for bringing this information out to the public. They certainly don’t want it to be out to the public, and that is deeply, deeply concerning. Stay safe. Thank you so much for this interview, and I really appreciate the work you’re doing.
[02:26:28] Dr. Richard Fleming: My pleasure, Ashley. Thank you for the invitation.
[02:26:30] Ashley James: I hope you enjoyed today’s interview with Dr. Richard Fleming. Please visit his website flemingmethod.com to watch the event. When I interviewed him, it was before the event. I thought I would have enough time to publish this before his event, but unfortunately, with our very quick move, we had to move very quickly out of the house we were in. I didn’t have enough time, and so now I’m publishing it after his event. But like I said in the introduction to today’s interview, in case you missed me saying that, the good news is you can go and watch the entire four-hour lecture, which I highly recommend checking out and just absorb the information.
Listen, my stance is don’t blindly trust anyone. Question everything, even question the guests I have. What I like about Dr. Fleming is he has all of the research behind what he says, and he invites you to check it out. You can download a 100+ page PDF with all of the research that he shows, all the studies he shows, all the information out there so that you can come to your own conclusions. I really like it when guests point us in the direction of resources so that we can do our own digging and affirm what direction we want to go with our health.
I believe that we need to be proactive when it comes to everything we put in our body—be it food or medicine—and that we need to look into research instead of blindly following or trusting anyone. Please don’t blindly trust or follow anyone, me, your doctor—anyone. We should look into information, and that’s why I say I’m an open minded skeptic. I’m going to be skeptical, but I’m going to be open-minded enough to look into the information and be open-minded enough to really check in.
I have to do an ego check. Do I put my ego aside enough to humble myself to be wrong? Is it okay that my belief system can be challenged? Is that okay? Some people it’s not okay. Some people want to blindly, no matter what, trust their belief system even when new evidence comes out that challenges it, and that’s where we can get ourselves in trouble when it comes to health because that then becomes dogma and not actual science.
So are you following science, which science is always changing as new information comes out, or are you following dogma, which is a belief system that would negate new information? We all have to do kind of an ego check and just ask ourselves, am I okay with my belief system being challenged in the light of new information? I know that you are to a certain extent because you’re here listening to this podcast, so you’re seeking information, you’re excited to seek information.
So just remember, being humble, being open minded, and being skeptical are really good strengths to have or to work on for your health.
Thank you so much for being a listener. Thank you so much for sharing this information with those you care about. Please join us in the Learn True Health Facebook group, what a great community we’ve been building over the last five years. I feel so privileged and so humbled to be in your presence, to work with all of you there at the Learn True Health Facebook group. Right now we have our community and in a Facebook group, and maybe in the future, we’ll have it somewhere else. Maybe I’ll host it somewhere else, but for now, several thousand listeners are there. Please come join us, it’s a wonderful place to be. Ask questions and also use the search function there to see past conversations as well.
Be sure to look up Dr. Richard Fleming and his website flemingmethod.com and check out his amazing four-hour lecture. I’d love for you to come join the Facebook group or if you already joined, come into the Facebook group afterward and let’s have a discussion about this episode today and also his four-hour lecture. What do you guys think? Let’s talk about it.
All right, thanks so much for being a listener and sharing these episodes. Let’s keep an open mind. One of my past mentors would say, keep your mind so open your brain could fall out. Have yourself a fantastic rest of your day.