top of page

Truth & Freedom: Can We Please Have a Conversation? Ep.1

Updated: Jul 22, 2022

Episode 1: 70% We Can All Agree On

This first episode is airing on Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 9:00 PM EDT. Edited Intro video on YouTube, Full video on Bitchute, and Full Audio on BlogTalk Radio.

Last summer I was on the ARISE USA Tour with Sacha Stone and David Robert Steele. I was the volunteer Project Manager. Volunteering for something I am passionate about is not new for me, I have been pretty much a full-time volunteer for the past 20 years.

Again, this year I learned about another tour, Crimes Against Humanity Tour USA. I went to the website and signed up to be a volunteer. Since May I have been volunteering for the tour working with Nash Sing, the organizer, and Dr. Judy Mikovits. Dr. Judy was already a friend of mine; we first met in Huntington Beach CA when we were both speakers at the UnMask Rally in January 2021.

Now here’s the kicker, both Tours broke apart within a few weeks. I said to myself, “Déjà vu!”. When it happened last year, I didn’t take sides, I stilled loved everyone equally. Same thing this year. I listened to everyone involved, my friend Dr. Judy, Nash and Dr. Richard Fleming. Nash said to me, he is happy to see I am able to stay neutral. I wanted to say to him neutral is my middle name. I am grounded in Unity and Oneness and my purpose in any dispute is to have both sides come to a respectful and peaceful resolution.

While speaking with Dr. Richard Fleming, he said he felt that everyone agreed on about 70%. I said then that is what everyone should focus on, what they agree on and not what they don’t agree on. The “Big Picture” is much more important. From that phone conversation I got the idea to launch my new series Truth and Freedom: Can We Please Have A Conversation. I invited Dr. Fleming to be my first guest for this series.

An interesting thing happened, because my intention for this episode was to focus on what the 70% we all agree on. Turns out what I thought we all agree on was not what Dr. Fleming thought we all agreed on. I leaned during that episode there was much he and I didn’t agree on. Therefore, this episode because a perfect example of two people who disagree in a conversation for over 2 hours and it never became an argument or debate.

No one ever lost their temper, and at the end of our long conversation we still had respect for each other. I have nothing but Love & Respect for Dr. Fleming even though we do not see eye to eye on most things. This morning I thought of a few questions I would have asked him if we had more time. Here is a continuation of our conversation via email exchange:

Follow-up Email Conversation with Dr. Fleming

Dear Dr. Fleming,

I was able to get a lot of work done on the show last night. I was able to create all the media files. The full video for Bitchute, edited video for YouTube and full audio file for BlogTalk Radio. The only thing I have left to do is write the blog post. Therefore, I am sure the show will air on Friday, July 8, 2022, at 7:00 PM EDT. When all the links are ready, I will send them to you to share.

As I had stated in my previous email, my intention for our show was to focus on the 70% that I thought we would be in agreement on. However, the conversation took a very different direction, which was perfect. I have some follow-up questions from our conversation.

I was very surprised when you said you feel the shots do meet the definition of a vaccine and it always has met that definition. When the shots were rolled out, I posted from the CDC website the definition of a vaccine they had on their website. Many people posted that definition on social media. Then within a few weeks the CDC changed the definition of a vaccine on their website.

If these shots always met the definition of a vaccine, why did the CDC change their definition of a vaccine on their website?

You also told me you think these shots are bio-weapons; this we are in perfect agreement with. However, if you think these shots are bio-weapons, how can you say they meet the definition of a vaccine? Are you saying a bio-weapon meets the definition of a vaccine?

Also, when I told you I met a young woman who had been in the military, she told me she had to get a lot of shots, being in the service. She did not get any covid shots. She told me after coming home from military service she discovered she was magnetic. She picked up a fork right in front of me and put it to her chest and the fork stuck to her. Your reply was basically, “Well, you didn’t see it.” Does this mean you do not believe something unless you see it with your own eyes?

Then when I mentioned that science has proven that human beings can only detect about 0.035% of what is actually around them with their five senses, you chuckled. Have you not heard of the visible light spectrum that humans can see is extremely tiny?

We spoke about the vials of the vaccine you examined, and we agreed that you cannot examine every vial in the world, no one can. However, even though you did not examine the same vials that other scientists examined, why do you keep saying what they saw is not what they saw? Would it be better to just present your work, rather than discrediting others? I am asking you this question because it is the basis of my show. To be able to have a conversation with someone you do not agree with. I believe everyone should be able to share their work.

I also thought about what you said about asymptomatic carriers. I will not dispute what you said about asymptomatic carriers, only to say it was nothing new, it has been around forever like you said. I went through the city today to catch a train to Virginia Beach. Everyone is wearing masks in the city; it seems like the new fashion statement is to wear a mask on your chin. There was no need for the News to stress asymptomatic carries if society has been living with it with no problems forever. People have common sense, and if they have symptoms they will automatically stay home. Everything the News was saying was just putting people in a state of fear, for no reason, which was their intended goal. Fear itself will lower a person’s natural immunity to disease.

These follow-up questions are just a continuation of our friendly conversation. I know our conversation was very long. However, from some of the things you said I woke up with questions this morning. And because our conversation is public, I will be sharing this email in the blog post I am writing up for the show. I would love to also include your reply in the blog post as well. Thank you so much!

Much Love & Appreciation, Caroline

(Dr. Fleming’s reply)


To try to summarize responses to your questions. Independent of anything else, vaccines elicit immune responses. It is not inconsistent for something to meet the definition of both a vaccine and a bioweapon. They are not mutually exclusive.

The protein structure of the spike protein is not snake venom. Syncytium is the fusion of two cells together; nothing more, nothing less.

Erythrocytes (rbcs) cannot give rise to something else as they are the only cells in the human body that have no genetic material and no ribosomes to make proteins. Much of the misinformation about terrain and these vaccines emanate from a lack of something; be that a lack of basic understanding, training, experience or good intentions. Air bubbles and sodium chloride (table salt) are not now and never have been

nanotechnology. Epidermal plant hairs are not now and never have been hyrdras. SARS-CoV-2 is not a combination of XMRV, HIV and SARS-CoV-1. Once you are infected with a virus, even if you have antibodies to that virus, that virus is always in your body.

I have seen nothing to support the 0.035% number you mentioned. While an interesting statement, there are a number of things people don't know. It doesn't mean what is known is wrong.

Lawyers have the privilege of not being right. As one, I can tell you that they can be less concerned about the truth than winning. In medicine and physics, usually if you are wrong there is a consequence. So it is vitally important to be right and know what you

are talking about before talking. We have seen too little of that lately.

Last but not least, there are people who would disagree that gravity is something they need to worry about, and we could choose to agree to disagree about gravity, but when they step out of the 20th floor of a building, their right to disagree doesn't protect them.

Dr. Fleming

(My reply) Dear Dr. Fleming,

I was actually about to send you an email then saw your reply. Honestly, I didn't mention anything about snake venom. I know absolutely nothing about that theory. I am not sure why you keep mentioning that.

You have never heard of the visible light spectrum on how very limited human vision is? It really is like your reply is not directed to my questions.

The way it looks now, I will not have the podcast air today. I didn't get to the hotel until 11pm last night. Here at the conference I cannot get any work done.

You asked me if I knew about the double-split experiment. I know and understand the experiment extremely well. Everything is in a state of infinite possibilities, until there is an observer. The observer determines the outcome. That speaks to the importance of a person's perception and perspective. It is that person's perception that creates their viewpoint.

The most important thing I ever learned was in 7th grade science class when we were studying atoms. My teacher said "Nothing is truly solid!" That was the point when I said the 5 human senses can only detect 0.035% of what is actually around us. We do not live in a solid world, it is made up of energy and we as observers are creating it individually and collectively.

I am kind and respectful to you always. I am extremely wise and kind. Many people mistake kindness for weakness, however, kindness is the ultimate STRENGTH.

I am 100% clear on what I know and what I speak about. Each person is a student and teacher. You can learn from everyone and everyone can learn from you.

I am replying to this on my phone because here at the conference there is no WIFI for my laptop.

I would appreciate when I ask you a question you stick to my question. You did answer two of my questions. Not all of them. You talked about things I didn't ask like snake venom. You didn't answer why the CDC changed the definition of a vaccine a few weeks after the rollout of the Covid shots? And the question if you don't see it with your own eyes you do not believe it is possible?

Much Love & Appreciation


(Dr. Fleming’s reply)


The snake venom is part of the misinformation I have been addressing; so when we discuss the topics, it will come up.

Am I aware of the visible light spectrum limiting human vision? As a physicist, I am very much aware of the range of the electromagnetic spectrum.

However, that does not affect what we are talking about so I didn't answer; but, yes, I am aware that visible light composes ranges from roughly 380 nm to 780 nm.

The slit wave experiment provides two not endless possibilities. To the best of my knowledge the CDC did NOT change the definition of vaccines. Finally, what I see with my own eyes and can validate is more important than simply taking someone's statement as fact.

If I see a horse (e.g. air, salt or epidermal plant hair) and you see a horse but you decide you want to call it a cow; this doesn't make it a cow. If someone runs into the room telling you something, all you know is this is what you were told. Hopefully you would go outside to find out the truth with your own eyes.

Hopefully this covered all your questions.

Dr. Fleming

(My reply)

Dear Dr. Fleming,

Honestly my question and concern is not about snake venom at all. I posted the CDC definition for a vaccine before they changed it. I am getting the impression that everything I say I personally experienced is not so because you didn't personally experience it. Which kinda you are saying I am not a truthful person. I know all I speak is truth from my perspective. The CDC did change the definition of a vaccine a few weeks after they rolled out the covid shots. That is a fact.

(Dr. Fleming’s reply)

Please feel free to send me the two definitions the CDC posted and when they were posted. I would be happy to look at them and respond.

(My reply)

I will when I am back at the hotel and can access my laptop. I can send you what they had on their website when I shared it, the date I got it. And send you the new definition.

(Dr. Fleming’s reply)

Perfect. I'm taking food to a shelter. Will look for it later.

(My reply)

CDC Definition & Data Dear Dr. Fleming,

I did not get back to my hotel room until after 11pm last night. I only have WiFi for my laptop when I am in my hotel room. It was late December 2020 or January 2021 when I copy and pasted the definition for a vaccine directly from the CDC website. Within a few weeks of that post the CDC changed the definition. I learned that they changed the definition from an episode of the Highwire. It is actually a known FACT that the CDC changed the definition of a vaccine weeks after the rollout of these shots.

David Martin even mentioned that during his talk yesterday on stage. Because that is the reason last week on July 6, 2022, the judge in his case in Utah asked why it was changed. The entire basis of David’s case is that these shots do not meet the definition of vaccines, and the judge in that case did take note of the change in the definition.

It is too time consuming for me to find what I posted 18 months ago, and I have to get ready to go to the conference in a little while. You mentioned the CDC data much in our conversation the other day. I talk about real world data. I did not get a chance to ask you about the VAERS data. For me the real-world data and data like VAERS is much more reliable than the CDC data. The CDC is known to LIE. That is exactly what the film VAXXED was about; it was about how the CDC LIE.

I realize there is much we do not agree on. That is just fine with me. My show is about Unity within Diversity. Meaning two people do not have to agree to love and respect one another. That is my mission, to unite Humanity.

I have to get ready to go to the conference and will leave my computer here since there is no WiFi at the conference. All is good!

Much Love & Appreciation, Caroline

(Email sent to Dr. Fleming July 22, 2022)

Dear Dr. Fleming,

Pre-systematic spreader is what you had described to me. I had not heard that term before today. Pre-systematic spreader is NOT Asystematic spreader. There is NO such thing as an Asystematic spreader, because these are healthy people who never got sick. The term Asystematic spreader was never used before 2020.

As soon as I heard this term Pre-systematic spreaders today, I had to bring this to your attention. Thank you!

Much Love & Appreciation, Caroline

(Dr. Fleming’s reply)

Dear Ms. Chang,

I do not believe I used the term Pre-systemic spreader.

While you may not think asymptomatic spreaders exist and you may not have heard the term used before 2020, you are incorrect.

I will be traveling and not responding to non-emergent emails.

Dr. Fleming

(My reply)

Dear Dr. Fleming,

No, you did not mention the term Pre-Systematic spreaders to me. I heard this term today while watching the Highwire! What I am saying is you did not describe Asystematic spreaders to me; what you described was Pre-Systematic spreaders. There is NO SUCH thing as Asystematic spreaders. That is common sense; a healthy person cannot get anyone sick. The term Asystematic spreaders was invented in 2020! There have always been Pre-Systematic spreaders, which you described to me.

Wishing you safe traveling to your destination. I always understand if a person is not able to reply to me right away. Have a wonderful weekend!

Much Love & Appreciation,


58 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page