Antibodies and surrogate endpoints: more pieces of the scientific and regulatory fraud puzzle.
Translation of July 12, 2020 German report: Misinterpretation of Antibodies, republished November 2020 by Northern Tracey.
Below is a translation of roughly the first half of a report published in German in July 2020.
July 12, 2020 - Die Fehldeutung der Antikörper/The Misinterpretation of Antibodies (Corona_Fakten)
The full report was translated and republished in November 2020 by Northern Tracey, without live links or clear formatting of quoted sections.
Nov. 2020 - The Misinterpretation of Antibodies (Northern Tracey)
Because the originals are both a bit difficult to read for a few different reasons, I’ve edited roughly the first half of the translated, original report, to hopefully improve the clarity of the information. Readers interested in the second half can use the two links to investigate further.
Information about historic mischaracterization of antibodies by governmental scientific and public health officers relates to the hypothesis that vaccination is the intentional induction of anaphylaxis by repeated injection of foreign proteins,1 and that US-government directed and funded worldwide vaccination campaigns have been historically and still are intentional mass deception and mass poisoning events camouflaged as public health communicable disease-prevention campaigns.
Intentional mischaracterization of what antibodies are and how they function in living creatures are important parts of the medical-scientific and regulatory cover-ups carried out concurrently with mass vaccination/poisoning events.
Corona-Fakten, Stefan Lanka, Northern Tracey, Sasha Latypova and others challenging principles of immunology, toxicology, pharmacology, pathology, bacteriology, microbiology and related fields have identified the inherently self-contradictory premises of vaccination.
Stop taking vaccines.
Stop vaccinating babies and children.
Related:
Nov. 4, 2022 - A Latypova and a Watt talk about DOD-controlled, BigPharma-manufactured, FDA-authorized bioweapons (Video links) Transcript by Dave Ratcliffe, Ratical.org
Sasha Latypova:
…Yes. The the contract that Warner [Mendenhall] was mentioning, that’s the contract between CDC and the vaccination centers. It’s actually—people can read it that specifies this whole language about federal property until it’s injected. Oh—and this whole diversion language [pp. 4-5, June 2021 provision, Sept. 2022 download]. Which I found ridiculous. I think ostensibly they wrote it because, “Oh my God, these are in such short supply, we need to vaccinate,” as you said, they needed this blitz as fast as possible. Inject everyone, because people will realize sooner or later they’re being lied to. And so they were, “Okay, they’re in such a short supply, you cannot divert them because every little vial counts.”
But here we are, couple years later, there are hundreds of millions of unused vials, hundreds of millions. So there’s no shortage of them.
And by the way, anything approved for market, formally approved by the FDA for market, and they come in fully approved, is — I worked in clinical trials. You can order it through licensed provider and do experiments with it, do studies with it as a third party independent researcher. It’s totally valid and okay.
And everybody does it for competitive reasons and other things. So that was always positive. When I told my colleagues about it, they were like, “What? No, we do this all the time, but with approved products, we do research.” And I said, “No, you can’t. This is a federal property.”
Katherine Watt:
And also the internat — two things about that. One is, you also have written about, and I have written about the international contracts, which specifically put in there that no third party independent testing of the contents can be done.
But the bigger picture of the combination of the adverse effects from the fraudulent trial, that are helping people understand somewhat of what’s in them and the analysis of the smuggled vials before injection, which is also helping people figure out, gets to your bigger point that you make all the time: that nothing in the vials corresponds to what’s on the label.
So we actually have literally no idea what is in any of these things. The only way we can get back to and reverse engineer and find out is by looking at how does it damage people and what does it, what are the properties of it when you look at it under a microscope or whatever...
That’s such a big aspect of the thing that people think that they know what they’ve taken and they actually don’t even know what they’ve taken.
Sasha Latypova:
No. Nobody knows what they’ve taken. Also, I try to caution my colleagues who are taking, as you know, face value, what’s written in, let’s say scientific journal about mRNA injections. They assume that it’s produced as it’s described in scientific literature. It couldn’t be farther from the truth. Then they make all kinds of assumptions. Oftentimes they’re very, very well-written papers and very thoroughly researched if you assume that this is the product. Right. But what we’re finding in reality —
Katherine Watt:
—You can’t make that assumption.
Sasha Latypova:
It’s a huge problem because I also work with networks of physicians who are trying to understand how to treat patients and without understanding what they got injured by, we can’t really figure out how to treat them properly. I mean, we know certain things. We know that for the most part, it’s poisoning of the blood and there’s particular characteristics that are exhibited in the blood. But that’s also the more convenient way to test people without huge equipment and expensive labs and so on, versus a blood draw, right. That’s all we can do so far and try to manage symptoms with various trial and error of simple programs and generic products. But that’s nowhere near where this needs to be. We need full disclosure. We need full understanding of what’s in those vials, who got injured by what, so that we can properly treat the vaccine injured.
Katherine Watt:
Which is made even more complicated by the fact that it probably wasn’t the same stuff in each of the vials. And it goes back to the part where I think, I don’t know if it was CDC or FDA or who, but somewhere in the U.S. government shortly after the rollout said you should not do antibody testing of people who have taken the shots, because that’s not going to show you anything that would be useful to know. And maybe they even put a financial thing, like we will not cover tests.
But that, I think that helps reinforce the point that they didn’t want people to be able to do pre- and post-injections of their own blood work to see what was in their blood before and what was in their blood after…
Titer/titre, definition (Merriam-Webster):
1) the strength of a solution or the concentration of a substance in solution as determined by titration:
2) a measure of the concentration of a substance (such as an antibody) in a blood sample that is obtained by subjecting the sample to serial dilutions (as with saline) to determine the maximum dilution at which the sample retains a specific activity (such as neutralizing an antigen) and that is often expressed as a ratio (such as 1:200)
July 12, 2020 - Die Fehldeutung der Antikörper/The Misinterpretation of Antibodies (Corona_Fakten) -
Written and published in German by pseudonymous Corona_Facts (on Telegram at Corona_Fakten)
A closer look at antibodies is more important today than ever. After showing in my other articles that there is no proof of the existence of a pathogenic virus, because none of the claimed pathogenic viruses have fulfilled Koch’s postulates, the “antibody” card has now been played by the vaccination advocates.
Their claim (which has been drilled into heads for decades) that antibodies are the indirect proof of a pathogen, or offer protection against a pathogen X, is based on an error.
This assertion has been repeatedly exposed as false. Since being asked again and again what these antibodies are, I would like to show in this article that antibodies are no proof of protection, nor that they work specifically as in the key-lock theory.
What is a titer increase?
Dr. Stefan Lanka: (Backup available)
“The increase is nothing more than the body’s reaction to poisoning [adjuvants]. When the body is poisoned, holes are torn in the cells by these poisons and the cells are destroyed. The body’s reaction when cells break down is to form sealing substances (globulins), small protein bodies that immediately expand in acidic environments, become flat and cross-link with their hydrogen sulphide groups (in which energy is stored) with other proteins and other things. These cause blood to clot and wounds to heal and they seal our cells when toxins are injected into the body.
Even if you get a blow on a muscle, (forming a bruise) or a blow on the kidney (especially sensitive), or the liver, there is an immediate increase in titer. The body reacts to this by sealing the damaged cells and sealing growing cells. It’s like a house that leaks until the windows are in and sealed.
They called this an antibody and even a specific antibody, which is not true. The binding property of these hydrogen sulfide-type proteins is non-specific, they bind to all sorts of things. You can manipulate this in the laboratory by changing the acid level, adding detergents that change the mineral concentration to achieve a binding or not.
The blood of a pregnant woman is full of globulins to seal the placenta, which is constantly growing, to accommodate the baby. The blood of a pregnant woman has to be diluted 40 times to avoid a massive positive result in tests, such as an HIV test”.
The approval of vaccines is limited solely to so-called "seroconversion."
All vaccines for Europe are approved by the EMA (European Medicines Agency) in London. Their demand for proof of effectiveness is limited solely to so-called seroconversion.
Seroconversion shows the formation of measurable antibodies in the blood of vaccinated persons, which are equated to a protective effect.
However, when assessing immunity or the effectiveness of vaccinations, this decisive limitation is again put into perspective by the fact that (almost) all current vaccinations are developed primarily to form antibodies.
[5] Correlates of Protection Induced by Vaccination, Plotkin SA, Clinical and Vaccine Immunology. July 2010, p. 1055–1065
“Although mucosal and cellular immune responses are clearly important to protection by some vaccines, most vaccines licensed today depend for their efficacy on serum antibodies.”
See also, [6] Immunologic correlates of protection induced by vaccination, Plotkin SA, 2001. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 20(1):63–75
This is very important for the development and approval of vaccines, as they have to prove their efficacy in this context – which is done without exception (and in many cases exclusively) by determination of provoked antibodies.
Even long-standing STIKO [German Standing Committee on Vaccination] members do not always seem to be aware of this correlation when they question the usefulness of titres after vaccinations – after all, the proof of efficacy of the respective vaccinations is based on the detection of precisely these antibodies.
According to Prof. Ulrich Heininger, STIKO member:
“For none of the generally recommended so-called basic vaccinations is a routine control of the vaccination success planned or even advisable”…[7-Heininger, 2017]
or the blanket statement regarding the measles vaccination,
“that a positive laboratory result does not certify protection” [8 - Heininger 2016].
If the latter were the case, the vaccination could not have been certified as effective and therefore approved...
However, in medicine we have known for decades that circulating antibodies are not synonymous with protection against a disease, a fact that can be understood even by laypeople using short examples.
If antibodies do indicate protection, how do the following statements of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), STIKO and Arzneitelegram [German medical journal] fit in?
1. The Arznei [Medical] Telegram April 2001 states: [1]
"Vaccine-induced titre increases are also unreliable substitutes for efficacy.
What benefit or harm the vaccinated person can expect cannot be deduced from such findings.”
2. The RKI (Robert Koch Institute) writes: [2 - Epidemiological Bulletin (EpiBull) No. 30 2012 p.299
"For some vaccine-preventable diseases (e.g. pertussis) there is no reliable serological correlate that could be used as a surrogate marker for existing immunity.
Furthermore, the antibody concentration does not allow any conclusion to be drawn about a possible existing cellular immunity.”
3. Prof. Ulrich Heininger, a long-standing member of the STIKO (permanent vaccination commission) writes [3 - Child vaccination manual. The competent decision-making aid for parents, 2004]
"It is neither necessary nor useful to determine efficacy by blood sampling and antibody determination after a vaccination has been carried out. On the one hand, even an antibody determination does not provide a reliable statement about the presence or absence of vaccination protection, and on the other hand, it is simply too expensive.”
4. RKI, 2008 - Sick in spite of vaccination? [4 - Epidemiological Bulletin 2008; 24:193-195
An example of this was a 14-year-old boy who had received sufficient basic immunization in childhood and a booster against tetanus six months earlier when he developed tetanus.
Laboratory tests revealed antibodies so high that, according to the definition of antibody titres, he should have been protected. But he was not.
This example shows that the theory of antibodies as “protective magic bullets” is wrong.
The RKI then coined the term “non-protective” antibodies.
5. Prof. Heininger - STIKO (2017) [7 - Heininger U. 2017. Ars medici. 2017(4):172-75
“The most important thing right from the start: For none of the generally recommended so-called basic vaccinations is a routine control of the vaccination success planned or even advisable.”
6. Prof. Heininger - STIKO (2016) [8 - Heininger U. 2016. Children and adolescent doctor. 47(4):227; http://www.kinder-undjugendarzt.de/download/47.(65.)Jahrgang2016/KJA_4-2016_Web.pdf, page not found as of Sept. 27, 2024]:
“...there are not only false-negative IgG antibody results (which would not bother us if the child received an MMR vaccination as a consequence), but unfortunately also false-positive results.
This must be put to parents so that they understand that a positive laboratory result does not certify protection and that they are much better advised to give their child a second dose of MMR.”
So again confirmation that a positive laboratory result is insignificant.
The question arises again and again as to how you know that antibodies offer circulating protection when the highest authorities themselves say that a titer increase cannot prove protection exists.
When people have high antibody levels, do they still fall ill? If no one can say exactly at what titer level there is real protection, why is the approval of a vaccine based on that exact reading? Personally, this makes me more than a little suspicious.
The following points are of crucial importance in this discussion:
First, we cannot always be sure that the question of immunity can be clarified by means of an antibody determination for each vaccine (see below).
Second, the antibodies that show up in routine tests are not automatically those that provide protection (immunity), but sometimes only those that indicate that (apart from the measured protective antibodies that are not decisive for immunity, and which are certainly not measured) protective antibodies have been produced.
The measured ones are then a so-called surrogate parameter of immunity.
This complicated hypothesis is based, on one hand, on the fact that the immune response produces numerous different antibodies with different functions and, on the other hand, that the determination of the actually-decisive antibodies in some vaccinations would be too time-consuming for routine diagnostics.
Or to put it simply, the connection between antibodies and immunity is a myth.
Third, each ‘immunity’ is based on statistics and therefore relative whether it protects in the individual case or not.
The true reasons for the state of the body being “symptom-free” lie buried in other justifications.
[6] Plotkin SA. 2001. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 20(1):63–75
"Thus protection is a statistical concept. When we say that a particular titer of antibodies is protective, we mean under the usual circumstances of exposure, with an average challenge dose and in the absence of negative host factors.”
Fourth, the question of protection from what exactly, is meant from the point of view of orthodox medicine, is also crucial.
For example, it is claimed that in the case of HiB and measles, much lower antibody levels protect against contracting the disease oneself (protection from disease) than is necessary to prevent transmission to others (protection from infection).
As there is still no scientific proof of the measles virus, the question naturally arises as to how the claim of protection from measles by antibodies can be claimed when the pathogen has not yet been proven. It's a fallacy. So the horse is being put before the cart here: "I’m measuring some 'antibodies,' so I’m indirectly claiming to have a pathogen.”
The measurable antibody titers after vaccination only shows the conflict of the immune system with the antigens, which are mostly coupled to adjuvants. Without these adjuvants there would be no antibody formation.
Here it becomes clear that the immune system is much more complex and does not function exclusively through antibody formation.
Herpes sufferers develop circulating antibodies against the herpes virus. Nevertheless, herpes can flare up again and again by weakening the immune system... And this occurs even when herpes antibodies are detectable.
Someone who is HIV-positive is also not happy about having circulating antibodies against HIV.
The hypothesis of antibodies does not work from start to finish.
If they can offer protection, how is it that people who have a sufficient titer still fall ill?
And how is it possible that the logic of antibodies in HIV was turned 180 degrees, such that high antibodies are deemed counterproductive?
Link to RKI Frequently Asked Questions page
Q: What should be done if there are no antibodies against measles after a double vaccination?
A: "If two vaccinations against measles are documented, protection against measles can be assumed with a high degree of probability, even in the absence of or borderline antibody levels."
No antibodies are required; protection through vaccination is always assumed, without providing any evidence for this. The phantom is always assumed, you don't even want to think in other directions. This is not science.
To claim an “antibody” you need a “body”
As I have already pointed out in my other articles, there is still no evidence of [measles virus] | [SARS] alleged pathogenic viruses.
So if I don’t have any evidence for a body, how can I claim to have defined specific antibodies and above all, how in God’s name can I test for them?
You know the answer: it is simply not possible.
What does all this mean for the vaccinated person?
Since there is no scientific research on how often this phenomenon occurs where vaccinated individuals develop ‘non-protective antibodies,’ the possibility of disease still remains for each vaccinated individual.
A complete vaccination record and also the detection of antibody titres, as is often done for example with rubella or hepatitis B, is no guarantee.
Could the non-protective antibodies, invented off the cuff, explain the situation where after vaccination (e.g. against measles, mumps, rubella or whooping cough etc.) the vaccinated individual may have antibodies, but still fall ill (with measles, mumps, rubella or whooping cough etc.)?
Could they be the reason (apart from the alleged mutations that undermine vaccination protection) for the epidemics despite high vaccination rates, in which, more often than not, a large percent of the sick were sufficiently vaccinated?
Circulating antibodies alone therefore do not provide reliable protection; this has been orthodox medical knowledge for many decades.
On the other hand, the proof of efficacy in the approval of vaccines is based solely on the proof of the allegedly (sometimes?) protective antibody titres.
DIMDI, the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information: Antibody titre is only a supplementary measurement.
A half truth from orthodox medicine – but still!
DIMDI, Cologne 2009, Surrogate endpoints as parameters of benefit assessment
"Antibodies are surrogate endpoints, i.e. substitute measurement quantities invented on the basis of random correlations...
The use of surrogate endpoints is [...] not unproblematic. In the past, there have been many situations in which relying on surrogate endpoints was misleading or had fatal consequences despite strong correlation with the clinical endpoint.
This problem has been known for more than 30 years. [...] Some products that were approved on the basis of surrogate endpoints had to be withdrawn from the market at a later date because the benefit-risk balance was reversed in studies with mortality or morbidity endpoints.”
So we have been dealing with problematic “substitute markers” for decades, which have repeatedly led to completely wrong results and assumptions.
Despite strong correlation (correlation is no scientific proof, only an indication) these were misleading and had fatal consequences.
It is time to correct this false hypothesis about antibodies.
Working aid on the topic of antibodies:
Stefan Lanka and Veronika Widmer from The Vaccination Lie: Does Vaccination Make Sense? (July 2005)
…Commentary on (wrong) question:
What are antibodies?
Correct question:
What is measured if antibodies are claimed?
According to Pschyrembel, antibodies are “a possible reaction of the immune system,” “Antibodies do not occur naturally.”
Was this formulation chosen because it is known that people with a high “antibody titre” can fall ill in the same way as people without “titre” remain healthy?
Today’s school of medicine distinguishes between the formation of foreign antibodies (pathogenic bacteria, toxins from viruses) and the body’s own antibodies (tumour cells).
While we are told that after a vaccination the organism is protected by the formation of antibodies, conventional medicine also describes cases in which the presence of antibodies has adverse effects on the organism. For example, conventional medicine refers to allergies, AIDS, transplant rejection and autoimmune diseases.
The Robert Koch Institute explains that: An increased total immunoglobulin concentration in the serum indicates in the majority of cases an allergic disease. However, elevated levels can also occur in cases of parasite infestation or malignant tumours, for example.
In the case of inhalation allergies, IgE levels are moderately to greatly increased, depending on the symptoms and the number of allergens causing the allergy. A normal IgE does not rule out an allergy.
If antibodies are diagnosed after a vaccination, conventional medicine tells us that the person concerned is now protected.
However, it is concealed that people are ill despite the presence of antibodies and people without antibodies remain healthy.
HIV-antibodies detected by a test produce a diagnosis of fatally ill – or at least – will become fatally ill.
Rubella antibodies detected by a test provide a diagnosis of – protected – to the affected person.
A contradiction in terms.
“Anti” bodies have never been detected.
Bodies, the immunoglobulins, which among other things play a role in the coagulation and cross-linking of proteins, have, however, been proven.
The word “anti” assumes that the immunoglobulins can only bind to certain proteins. All experiments ever performed, however, rule this out.
Whether or not binding takes place depends on the environment and state of the proteins: Whether acidic or basic, i.e. oxidized or reduced.
Every scientist who has carried out such experiments or studied them knows this.
Antibody tests: The procedure in the laboratory
First, the blood is separated from its cells and the larger proteins. This is done, for example, by a centrifuge. 99% of all tests performed are carried out with the patient’s serum, the remaining blood liquid.
Now the laboratory technician is told what is to be detected by the antibody test. For this purpose, the so-called supernatant is then filled with corresponding, pharmaceutically produced, patented substances whose composition is kept secret (the government and the Paul Ehrlich Institute under its supervision keep strict secrecy).
If there is a measurable reaction, the test is evaluated as “positive.” Up to now, it has been claimed that if antibodies were detected, immune protection has been proven.
The indirectly and not quantitatively determined amount of “antibodies” is then called a titer.
In the case of AIDS, however, a death sentence is pronounced, if necessary, because it was claimed that the antibodies are now indicative of the presence of the AIDS virus.
So it is not surprising that there is no scientific standard for titres and that the measurements are never comparable.
It is even less surprising then that there are no scientific criteria whatsoever as to when a titer can, should, may etc. be called “immune protection.”
The laboratory technician is told that the test kit contains one or more proteins exactly corresponding to the shape of the microbe. If the laboratory technician would think about it, he would realize that under the appropriate conditions the form of the proteins could not correspond to that of the claimed microbe, because the proteins are no longer in their natural environment. This is called denaturation of the proteins.
According to the delusional logic of compulsion, these unknown proteins are then named “antigens” by which the antibodies can be detected. The test kit also contains: e.g. dyes and substances that serve to produce a “positive” signal for reproduction. The apparatus, into which the whole thing is then placed, is calibrated again with substances whose composition is kept secret and which are monitored by the aforementioned Paul Ehrlich Institute.
The fact that there are about 5% people in the entire population in whose blood, under laboratory conditions, little or no immunoglobulins can be detected, is not discussed and not investigated. These people are then called “non-responders” after vaccination and are poisoned with more and more vaccines according to delusional logical compulsion.
Blood group AB was invented for these 5% and according to compulsive logic, blood groups A and B, in addition to blood group 0 (40% of the population), for which little or no proteins that could clump in the test tube are found under the appropriate laboratory conditions.
The contradictions that arose from the dogma of blood groups were first dismissed by the discovery of a rhesus factor and later by the continuous introduction of thousands of sub-blood groups.
Stefan Lanka: Facts that refute claims about antibodies and a specific immune system.
1. Because there are so-called autoimmune diseases and so-called allergies that occur at lightning speed. In psycho-neuro-immunology this is called facilitation.
Comment: It cannot be the case that “specific” antibodies react against the “foreign” and then suddenly against “your own” proteins.
2. Changing “foreign” intestinal bacteria exist side by side with immune cells that are supposed to carry out the specific defense.
Comment: If there were specific antibodies, intestinal colonization would not be able to change.
3. Humans, mammals, bony fish and sharks exist. They produce immunoglobulins.
Comment: If there were specific antibodies, the offspring would be destroyed and breast milk would be toxic.
4. New proteins appear during the development of humans and animals, during shock and with age.
Comment: Since according to the immune hypotheses, which have never been verified but always falsified, “foreign” and “own” proteins are recognized in the thymus in early childhood and “antibodies,” if the forming immune cells are sorted out against “own” proteins, proteins that appear later, such as hormones during puberty etc., would automatically lead to allergies, autoimmune diseases, destruction and death. This is not the case.
In principle, there cannot be “anti” bodies against viruses that do not exist. Here, the claim of the existence of specific antibodies and specific tests clearly turns out to be a crime and, consequently, genocide.
Comment: Since immunoglobulins are detected that are able to bind other proteins, there is “body.” But not “anti.” But globulins that first complete themselves in the oxidized, i.e. acidic environment (via reduced S-H groups, which in the oxidized state combine to form disulfite groups (–S-S-) and thus bind the protein chains together, which first makes up the complete immunoglobulin) are then able to bind proteins that are intended for transport, conversion or recycling.
Comment from Karl Krafeld:
An antibody can only be claimed if the body has been proven. Evidence (including through tests) of many virus antibodies is claimed without the virus being scientifically proven.
Orthodox medicine knows its own nonsense that it habitually spreads: “Antibodies form in infectious diseases and the detection of antibodies is evidence of protection against the disease.”
According to orthodox medicine, HIV positivity should be the best protection against AIDS.
Every test measures what the test measures, but no one knows exactly what the test measures.
The tests react quite unspecifically to proteins, according to the coffee grounds reading principle: Is Eduscho or Tschibo better for coffee grounds reading?
In any case, no test can detect antibodies if the underlying body has never been detected…
Note from KW - To read the rest of the June 12, 2020 Corona-Fakten analysis, please see Northern Tracey translation or the German original.
Aug. 21, 2024 - Similarities between "spike protein" and synthetic anthrax toxin. Real bioweapons are not viruses but chemical weapons. (Sasha Latypova)
Aug. 26, 2024 - Intentional elusivity of definitions for virus and vaccine. (Katherine Watt)
Sept. 3, 2024 - The second shot, or what do vaccinators and sewer rats have in common? Reviewing Charles Richet's work on anaphylaxis, awarded the Nobel Prize in 1913. (Sasha Latypova)
Sept. 9, 2024 - Anaphylaxis by vaccines - discussion with Dr. Jane Ruby (Sasha Latypova)
Sept. 12, 2024 - On vaccination as intentional induction of chronic and acute anaphylaxis. (Katherine Watt, condensed transcript of Latypova-Ruby discussion).
Sept. 14, 2024 - Scientifically unsupported and insupportable Presidential designation of quarantinable communicable diseases; habeas corpus petitions. (Katherine Watt)
Sept. 23, 2024 - Vaccine-induced food allergies: turning [even organic and healthy] food into poison (Sasha Latypova)
